Lakeport Municipal Review and Sphere of Influence

LAKE LAFCO
DRAFT CITY OF LAKEPORT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE

October 2011
LAKE LAFCO MSR and SOI CITY OF LAKEPORT Hearing Draft October 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 LAFCO's Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Municipal Service Review Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Lake LAFCO Policies and Procedures Related to Municipal Services . . . . . . . 1.4 Preparation of the MSR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 Description of Public Participation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1 City of Lakeport Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2 City of Lakeport History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.3 City of Lakeport Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.4 City of Lakeport Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.5 City of Lakeport Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 CITY OF LAKEPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1 City of Lakeport Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1.1 City of Lakeport Mission Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1.2 City Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 A. City Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 B. City Manager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 C. City Clerk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 D. City Finance Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 E. City Attorney . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.2 Development Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.2.1 Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.2.2 Redevelopment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.2.3 Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.2.4 City Engineer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.3 Fire Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.3.1 Fire Protection Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 A. Fire Protection Mutual Aid Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 B. Fire and EMS Dispatch Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 C. Fire Protection and EMS Response Time Issues . . . . . . . . . 18 D. Fire Protection Staffing Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 E. Fire Protection Water Supply Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.3.2 City of Lakeport Fire Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.4 Police Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3.4.1 Law Enforcement Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 A. Law Enforcement Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 B. Law Enforcement Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 C. Crime Clearance Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.4.2 City of Lakeport Police Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.4.3 Public Safety Finances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.5 Water Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 3.5.1 Domestic Water Supply, Treatment and Distribution: Background . 27 3.5.2 Water Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 A. Surface Water Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 B. Clear Lake Water Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 C. Lake County Groundwater Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 D. Lake County Watershed Protection District . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 E. Scotts Valley Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 F. Water-Bearing Formations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 G. Groundwater Hydrogeology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
H. Groundwater Quality/Inelastic Land Surface Subsidence . . . 33 City of Lakeport Water Supply and Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Water Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Water Service Finances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 A. Water Treatment Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 B. Water Services Charges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 C. Water Treatment Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 3.5.6 City of Lakeport Water Service Master Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Wastewater Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 3.6.1 Wastewater Treatment Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 3.6.2 City of Lakeport Wastewater Treatment System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 A. History of Wastewater Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 B. Modern Wastewater Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 C. Wastewater Collection System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 D. Wastewater Treatment Master Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 3.6.3 Wastewater Treatment Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 3.6.4 Inflow and Infiltration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 3.6.5 Wastewater Treatment Finances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 City of Lakeport Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 3.7.1 Public Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 A. Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 B. Streets and Roads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 3.7.2 Parks Buildings and Grounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 A. City Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 B. Boating and Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 C. Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 3.7.3 Westshore Pool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 City of Lakeport Solid Waste Collection and Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 3.8.1 Solid Waste Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 3.8.2 City of Lakeport Trash Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 City of Lakeport Finances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 3.9.1 General Fund Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 3.9.2 Annual Financial Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 A. Pension Plan Obligations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 B. Post-Retirement Health Care Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 C. Risk Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 D. Commitments and Contingencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 E. Assets and Liabilities June 30, 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 3.5.3 3.5.4 3.5.5
CITY OF LAKEPORT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 4.1 Growth and Population Projections for the City of Lakeport Area . . . . . . . . . 54 4.1.1 City of Lakeport Area Population Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 4.1.2 MSR Determinations on Growth and Population Projections for the City of Lakeport Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 4.2 Capacity and Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 4.2.1 Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 4.2.2 MSR Determinations on Infrastructure for the City of Lakeport . . . . . 57 A. Police Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 B. Fire Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 C. Water Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 D. Wastewater Collection and Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 E. Solid Waste Collection and Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 F. Streets and Roads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 G. Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 H. Park and Recreation Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4.3
Financial Ability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 4.3.1 Financial Considerations for City of Lakeport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 4.3.2 MSR Determinations on Financing for the City of Lakeport . . . . . . . . 61 4.4 Opportunities for Shared Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 4.4.1 Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 4.4.2 MSR Determinations on Shared Facilities for City of Lakeport . . . . . 62 4.5 Government Structure and Accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 4.5.1 Government Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 4.5.2 MSR Determinations on Local Accountability and Governance for the City of Lakeport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 CITY OF LAKEPORT SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 5.1 Sphere of Influence Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 5.1.1 LAFCO's Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 5.1.2 Sphere of Influence Determinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 5.1.3 Possible Approaches to the Sphere of Influence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 5.1.4 SOI Update Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 5.1.5 SOI Amendments and CEQA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 5.2 Present and Planned Land Uses in the City of Lakeport Area, Including Agricultural and Open Space Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 5.2.1 General Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 5.2.2 Draft South Main Street and Soda Bay Road Annexation Area Plan for Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 5.2.3 SOI Determinations for Present and Planned Land Use . . . . . . . . . . 68 5.3 Municipal Services Present and Probable Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 5.3.1 Municipal Services Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 5.3.2 SOI DeterminationsFacilities and Services Present and Probable Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 5.4 Public Facilities Present and Future Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 5.4.1 Capacity Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 5.4.2 SOI Determinations--Public Facilities Present and Future Capacity 70 5.5 Social or Economic Communities of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 5.5.1 Community Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 5.5.2 SOI Determinations Social or Economic Communities of Interest . 71
APPENDIX A LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 APPENDIX B CITY OF LAKEPORT SEWER AND WATER FEES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 PREPARERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 MAPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
INTRODUCTION
This Municipal Service Review is prepared for the City of Lakeport in Lake County. The Municipal Service Review (MSR) includes the following information: LAFCO requirements for MSRs; City of Lakeport Area background; Description of services provided by City of Lakeport; and Analysis of City of Lakeports capability to serve existing and future residents in the area. 1.1 LAFCO's Responsibilities
Local Agency Formation Commissions are quasi-legislative local agencies created in 1963 to assist the State in encouraging the orderly development and formation of local agencies. The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Government Code 56000 et seq.) is the statutory authority for the preparation of an MSR, and periodic updates of the Sphere of Influence of each local agency. The Governors Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has issued Guidelines for the preparation of an MSR. This MSR adheres to the procedures set forth in OPRs MSR Guidelines and Lake LAFCOs Local Procedural Guidelines for Municipal Service Reviews. A Sphere of Influence is a plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency, as determined by the affected Local Agency Formation Commission (Government Code 56076). Government Code 56425(f) requires that each Sphere of Influence be updated not less than every five years, and 56430 provides that a Municipal Service Review shall be conducted in advance of the Sphere of Influence update. 1.2 Municipal Service Review Requirements
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 as amended by AB1744 and regulations call for a review of the municipal services provided in the county or other appropriate area designated by the LAFCO. The LAFCO is required, as part of the MSR, to prepare a written statement of findings of its determinations with respect to each of the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1.3 Growth and Population Capacity and Infrastructure Financial Ability Shared Facilities Government Structure and Accountability
Lake LAFCO Policies and Procedures Related to Municipal Services
The Lake LAFCO adopted policies and procedures related to municipal services on March 20, 2002. These policies were amended by action of the Lake LAFCO on July 16, 2003 and November 28, 2007. 1
1.4
Preparation of the MSR
Research for this Municipal Service Review (MSR) was conducted during the summer and fall of 2010. This MSR is intended to support preparation and update of the City of Lakeport Sphere of Influence, in accordance with the provisions of the Cortese-KnoxHertzberg Act. The objective of this Municipal Service Review (MSR) is to develop recommendations that will promote more efficient and higher quality service patterns, identify areas for service improvement, and assess the adequacy of service provision as it relates to determination of appropriate sphere boundaries. While Lake LAFCO prepared the MSR document, LAFCO did not engage the services of experts in engineering, biology, chemistry, accounting, hydrology, geology, water law, fire protection, recreation or other specialists in related fields, but relied upon published reports and Lake County and City of Lakeport staff for information. Therefore, this MSR reflects LAFCOs recommendations, based on available information during the research period and provided by City of Lakeport staff to assist in its determinations related to promoting more efficient and higher quality service patterns, identifying areas for service improvement, and assessing the adequacy of service provision for the City of Lakeport Service Area. 1.5 Description of Public Participation Process
The LAFCO proceedings are subject to the provisions Californias open meeting law, the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code Sections 54950 et seq.) The Brown Act requires advance posting of meeting agendas and contains various other provisions designed to ensure that the public has adequate access to information regarding the proceedings of public boards and commissions. Lake LAFCO complies with the requirements of the Brown Act. The State MSR Guidelines provide that all LAFCOs should encourage and provide multiple public participation opportunities in the municipal service review process. Local MSR policies have been adopted by the Lake LAFCO. Lake LAFCO has discussed and considered the MSR process in open session, and has adopted a schedule for completing the various municipal service reviews and sphere of influence updates for Lake County. Each municipal service review will be prepared as a draft, and will be subject to public and agency comment prior to final consideration by the Lake LAFCO. 1.6 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The Municipal Service Review is a planning study that will be considered by Lake LAFCO in connection with subsequent proceedings regarding the City of Lakeport and its Sphere of Influence. The Sphere of Influence review or update that will follow has not been approved or adopted by LAFCO. This MSR is funded in the Lake LAFCOs 2010-2011 Budget. This MSR includes an analysis, to the extent required by Section 15262 of the CEQA Guidelines, of the environmental factors that may be affected by the Municipal Service Review process, but will not include the preparation of an environmental review document. 2
2 2.1
SETTING City of Lakeport Background
Lakeport is the oldest incorporated (1888) community in Lake County and is the Lake County seat.1 The City is located along State Highway 29 on the western shore of Clear Lake. The Lakeport area is described as follows: The Citys permanent trade area population is approximately 35,000. Per capita sales figures are among the highest in the region and are typically higher than the States average. With a population just over 5,100, Lakeport maintains a small town character and low crime rate. The City of Lakeport provides an opportunity for growth and a number of benefits for business and industry, including a pro-business community, affordable housing, and a variety of buildable sites within the 2.7 square mile City limits. Local festivals include the following: Lake County Fair Lake County Rodeo Tule Boat Festival (and the annual Cardboard Regatta) Taste of Lakeport Summer Concert Series Dickens Street Fair 2.2 City of Lakeport History
The Lakeport area was first occupied by Native Americans several thousand years ago. At the time of early European settlement in what was to become Lake County, the KabeNapos, a subtribe of the Pomo people, lived here within their main village. The village name was Kaci-Badon, after the water lily plant Kaci, and badon, which was the native word for island.2 Miners wound their way through Lake County from the gold fields as early as 1847. At the conclusion of the Gold Rush, many miners returned to the County to settle permanently. The farmland was attractive and the climate was so temperate that many of the pioneers who had originally come for gold [and quicksilver] began to stake a claim on the lands around Clear Lake during the 1850's, and among them was William Forbes, who is reputedly the Father of the city of Lakeport. Forbes would become the first undertaker, the settlements postmaster for a number of years and, with his partner James Parish, founded the first business in the new town, a blacksmithing and wagon-making shop. Originally named Forbestown after Forbes, Lakeport was first a part of Napa County. In 1861, after the settlement broke away from Napa, Forbes deeded 40 acres of his land to the local government in exchange for Forbestown becoming the County seat. 3
1 2
http://www.cityoflakeport.com/, July 4, 2010. Mauldin, Henry K., "History of Clear Lake, Mt. Konocti and the Lake County Cattle Industry," 1960. 3 http://www.lakeport.com/lakeport_california_history.htm, July 17, 2010.
The first post office, called Big Valley, opened at the site in 1858, and changed its name to Lakeport in 1861.4 On June 14, 1861, Forbestown was officially changed to Lakeport. Some locations still bear the Forbes name, however, such as Forbes Creek and Forbes Street. 2.3 City of Lakeport Population
Population growth is shown in the Citys Housing Element as follows: City of Lakeport Population Growth 1990-20085
1990 Population 2000 Population Percent Change 1990 to 2000 2008 Population Percent Change 2000 to 2008
Lakeport Lake County California
4,390 50,631 29,760,021
4,820 58,309 33,871,648
9.8% 15.2% 13.8%
5,045 64,059 38,049,462
4.7% 9.7% 12.3%
Source: 1990, & 2000 U.S. Census, 2009 California Department of Finance (E-4, 2008 Population Estimates)
The City of Lakeport has more females than males as shown below: Males: 2,390 (46.5%)6 Females: 2,752 (53.5%) This is probably due, in part, to the fact that the median age in Lakeport is higher than that for the State of California as shown below: City of Lakeport Median Resident Age: 40.8 years7 State of California Median Resident Age: 33.3 years The median household income for the City of Lakeport was lower than the National household income (as reported in the 2000 Census) and also lower than that for the State of California in 2008: City of Lakeport Household Income 20008 and 20089 2000 $32,226 $41,994 2008 $44,094 $61,021
City of Lakeport California United States

Source: 2000 census, U.S. Census Bureau
Durham, David L. (1998). California's Geographic Names: A Gazetteer of Historic and Modern Names of the State. Quill Driver Books. p. 90. ISBN 9781884995149. 5 City of Lakeport, Housing Element, September 2009, Page 3-1. 6 http://www.city-data.com/city/Lakeport-California.html, July 17, 2010. 7 http://www.city-data.com/city/Lakeport-California.html, July 17, 2010. 8 http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/genInfo.php?locIndex=10389, July 4, 2010. 9 http://www.city-data.com/city/Lakeport-California.html, July 17, 2010.
The estimated annual per capita income in the City of Lakeport for 2008 was $21,324 per person. The estimated median house or condo value in the City of Lakeport for 2008 was $282,357 ($116,200 in 2000) which was significantly lower than that for the State of California ($467,000). 2.4 City of Lakeport Economy
The General Plan describes the City of Lakeport and the surrounding area as having almost a majority of the employment within the County:10 The City of Lakeport supports approximately 45% of all jobs in Lake County. Additionally, the majority of Lake County Government offices are located within the City of Lakeport. There are six business centers in the Lakeport area, including the historic downtown area which is designated as a California Main Street City. The Citys permanent retail trade area population is approximately 30,000, and per capita sales figures are among the highest in the region, and generally higher than the State average. This can be attributed to at least three characteristics of the Lakeport area: a high level of spendable income by residents; the recognition of Lakeport as a local retailing center; and the impact of tourism. Lakeport is known as a regional recreational destination and this attribute should be maximized in any effort undertaken by the City to encourage and foster economic development. The clean air, natural beauty, and the multitude of recreational opportunities afforded by Clear Lake and the surrounding areas are great assets to the community and provide an economic advantage to visitor-serving businesses. The largest business sectors (in terms of the number of businesses) in Lakeports economy are services (45%), followed by retail trade (19%), and then finance, insurance and real estate (9%). These three sectors account for 639 businesses or 73 % of all businesses in Lakeport. The classification of services includes some of the larger revenuegenerating businesses such as the hospital and other health care providers, but also many of the small mom and pop businesses such as repair services, child care, building maintenance, and beauty shops. Total employment in the services sector is 2,342 persons. Since the City of Lakeport has a prominent position in Lake County, both because it is the County Seat and because it has a good economic position, the City should plan for growth that will maintain the economy and jobs in the area.
10
City of Lakeport General Plan 2025, Economic Development Element, August 2009, Pages VI-1.
2.5
City of Lakeport Schools
Lakeport is and has been the home of Mendocino College Lake Center for the past 20 years.11 The Lakeport Unified School District operates the following six schools: Lakeport Elementary School 150 Lange St., Lakeport, CA 95453-3297 Terrace Middle School 250 Lange St., Lakeport, CA 95453-3230 Clear Lake High School 350 Lange St., Lakeport, CA 95453-3247 Natural Continuation High School 100 Lange Street, Lakeport, California 95453 Lakeport Alternative School 100 Lange Street, Lakeport, California 95453 Lakeport Community Day School 100 Lange Street, Lakeport, California 95453 Phone Number 707-262-3000
Phone Number 707-262-3000
11
http://www.lakeportmainstreet.com/, July 17, 2010.
3 3.1 3.1.1
CITY OF LAKEPORT City of Lakeport Management City of Lakeport Mission Statement
The City of Lakeport Mission Statement is as follows:12 We serve the community through the efficient and effective administration and delivery of a vast array of activities, services and policy directives intended to address the community vision, areas of emphasis and goals of the Lakeport City Council. 3.1.2 A. City Administration City Council13
The City Council for the City of Lakeport, comprised of five council members, provides policy direction to the City Manager. The Council adopts ordinances to control the affairs of the City. The Council oversees the fiscal affairs of the City and approves and adopts the annual City budget. The Council also provides policy direction for the enforcement of City ordinances and may pass emergency ordinances for the immediate preservation or protection of public health, property, or safety. The Council enters into contracts and cooperative or joint activities with other government bodies. In addition to the regularly scheduled meetings, council members serve as committee members on various agencies and committees and attend numerous other meetings, including the Lake County/City Area Planning Council, the Lake County Solid Waste Management Task Force, the Lake County Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Service Authority, the SB 621 Indian Gaming Funds Committee, the Local Agency Formation Commission, Lake County Airport Land Use Commission, Lake Countys Clean Water Program Advisory Council, and the Clear Lake Advisory Committee. The City Council is elected to staggered four-year terms. There is an election each November of even numbered years with either two or three seats up for election. The Council selects a mayor and mayor pro tem from among its members to serve a oneyear term. The mayor presides over the Council meetings, which are held on the first and third Tuesday of each month. Normally, Council meetings begin at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, 225 Park Street. The public is invited to attend all Council meetings. The City Council Members are as follows:14 Suzanne Lyons - Mayor Stacy Mattina - Mayor Pro Tem Tom Engstrom - Council Member Roy Parmentier - Council Member Robert Rumfelt - Council Member
12 13 14
City of Lakeport, Budget Fiscal Year 2009/2010, Page 1. City of Lakeport, http://www.cityoflakeport.com/departments/home.aspx?deptid=88, July 13, 2010. City of Lakeport, http://www.cityoflakeport.com/departments/contact.aspx?deptID=88, July 10, 2010.
The City of Lakeport is fortunate to have dedicated citizens willing to serve on the City Council. The job takes more time than just attendance at the City Council meetings. It takes time for the Council members to learn about the operations and budgets of the City departments and to oversee all aspects of the City. The Council members are required to file Conflict of Interest Forms and to learn about the many State and Federal laws which govern City operations. The contact information for the City of Lakeport is as follows: Lakeport City Hall, 225 Park Street, Lakeport, CA 95453 Phone: 707-263-5615 The City Council has a separate Budget as follows: City of Lakeport Budget City Council Department 1010 Description 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 Actual Actual Actual Budget15 Revenue $207,523 $158,549 $117,866 Expenditures Salaries/Benefits Operating Expense Capital Outlay Total Expense
2010/2011 Budget16 $109,027
$75,856 $178,473 0 $254,329
$74,685 $132,838 0 $207,523
$70,153 $88,396 0 $158,549
$59,609 $58,258 0 $117,866
$55,296 $56,731
$112,027
The revenue for the City Council comes from the General Fund. Clearly the City Council is reducing expenses from year to year due to the economic recession. B. City Manager17
The City of Lakeport City Manager is Margaret Silveira. Contact information for the City Manager is as follows: Phone: (707) 263-5615, Ext. 32 Email: msilveira@cityoflakeport.com Fax: (707) 263-8584
The City Manager is appointed by the City Council and serves at the pleasure of the City Council. The City Manager provides day-to-day leadership and manages all City departments under the direction of the City Council. The City Manager is responsible for carrying out the Citys policies, rules, regulations, and laws, coordinating all municipal programs and services, making recommendations to the Mayor and City Council as appropriate concerning the operation, affairs and future needs of the City; participating in City Council meetings without the right to vote and to keeping the City Council advised on the operation, finances and needs of the City. The City Manager is responsible for managing the City's financial operations, including the accounting of all revenues and expenditures, the preparation and administration of
15 16 17
City of Lakeport, Budget Fiscal Year 2009/2010, Page 14. City of Lakeport, Budget Fiscal Year 2010/2011, Page 14. City of Lakeport, http://www.cityoflakeport.com/departments/home.aspx?deptID=44, July 13, 2010.
the City's annual budget, and providing customer service to the community. The City Manager oversees personnel rules and procedures, ensuring compliance with state and federal laws. The budget for the City Manager is combined with the budget for the City Clerk and is shown below in this report. C. City Clerk18
The City Clerk for the City of Lakeport is Janel Chapman. Contact information for the City Clerk is as follows: Phone: 707-263-5615, x 12 Email: jchapman@cityoflakeport.com
The City Clerk is appointed by the City Council to perform various functions required by the Government Code of the State of California, as well as other duties to provide efficient administration of City services. The Office of the City Clerk has a broad range of responsibilities, including the following four categories: City Council Support Services 1. Prepares City Council Agendas (including internal distribution of agenda packets, which contain all related reports and documents) 2. Provides agendas to subscribers via mail and e-mail and uploads agendas on the City's website 3. Prepares minutes of the City Council meetings 4. Provides clerical support to the Mayor and the City Council including correspondence, reservations, expenses, proclamations and certificates 5. Conducts recruitment for various City committees and commissions 6. Coordinates annual City Council Reorganization 7. Maintains a database of all commission and committee memberships including: the Parks & Recreation Commission, the Westside Park Committee, the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee, and the ADA Committee. 8. Facilitates the commission and committee application process for all advisory boards City Administration Support Services Provides clerical support to the City Manager Processes applications for use of City parks and facilities Answers citizen inquiries made by mail, telephone, or in person Acts as Secretary to the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee and the Lakeport Redevelopment Agency Acts as the Citys agent for service of legal process Receives and processes all claims filed against the City by the general public Is responsible for the codification of City ordinances into the Municipal Code, including quality checks and distribution of the Code
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
18
City of Lakeport, http://www.cityoflakeport.com/departments/home.aspx?deptID=43, July 13, 2010.
Election Services 1. Provides prospective City Council members with candidate filing packets 2. Coordinate with the County of Lake Elections Department to conduct City elections 3. Administers the filings for all appointed and elected officials identified in the Political Reform Act and the City's Conflict of Interest Code Records Management Services 1. Maintain official City records, available in various media 2. Update the City of Lakeport Municipal Code 3. Track insurance for Council approved projects and agreements 4. Custodian of records and of the City Seal. 5. Certify the accuracy and validity of certain City documents as official records by signature and by affixing the seal of the City of Lakeport. 6. Develop and maintain the city's records retention schedule to ensure the proper storage, maintenance, and disposal of municipal records city-wide. The Budget for the City Manager and the City Clerk is combined as follows under the Administration Department City of Lakeport Budget Administration Department 1020 Description 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 Actual Actual Actual Budget19 Revenue $ $80,249 $65,789 $102,641 Expenditures Salaries/Benefits Operating Expense Capital Outlay Total Expense
2010/2011 Budget20 $125,919
$40,446 $35,129 772 $76,347
$49,905 $25,094 **5,250 $80,249
$47,349 $16,730 *1,710 $65,789
$73,420 $26,221 *3,000 $102,641
$91,334 $33,086 *1,500 $125,919
** Vehicle,*Office Equipment and Furnishings
The revenue for administration comes from the General Fund; and, as is the case in most administration departments, personnel is the greatest expense. D. City Finance Department
The City of Lakeport Finance Department has the following personnel:21 Cassandra Benitez - Office Specialist Kelley Donaldson - Accountant I Martha Huerta - Accounting Technician Karen Moreno - Account Clerk The City of Lakeport Finance Department provides financial management and support services to other City departments, the business community and general public. Services include the following:
19 20 21
City of Lakeport, Budget Fiscal Year 2009/2010, Page 15. City of Lakeport, Budget Fiscal Year 2010/2011, Page 15. City of Lakeport, http://www.cityoflakeport.com/departments/contact.aspx?deptID=75, May 7, 2011.
10
1. Accounts Receivable and Payable 2. Business License renewals 3. Financial Planning including Budget development and financial advisory services to other departments 4. Financial Reporting and Accounting 5. Payroll and Benefits administration for all City employees 6. Revenue collection including TOT and CLMSD assessments 7. Treasury services 8. Utility Billing - Water, Sewer and Garbage The Budget for the Finance Department is as follows: City of Lakeport Budget 2009/2010 Finance Department 1041 Description 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 Actual Actual Actual Budget22 Budget23 Revenue $ $325,187 $317,545 $331,552 $342,618 Expenditures Salaries/Benefits $233,716 $305,964 $303,293 $300,703 $283,063 Operating Expense 17,870 17,123 14,252 29,849 47,555 Capital Outlay 0 **2,100 *1,000 0 Total Expense $251,587 $325,187 $317,545 $331,552 $342,618
**Vehicle,*Office Equipment and Furnishings
As with the Administration Department, the revenue comes from the General Fund and the major expense is personnel. E. City Attorney24
Steven Brookes is the City Attorney. Contact information is as follows: Phone: 707-263-5615, Extension 27 Email: sbrookes@cityoflakeport.com The City Attorney is responsible for providing legal advice to the City Council and staff in carrying out their duties in the operations of the City government. The Attorney, or special counsel supervised by the Attorney, defends the City in all legal actions and brings about suits on behalf of the City. The City Attorney is not a public defender of citizens. City of Lakeport Budget 2009/2010 City Attorney Department 1030 Description 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 Actual Actual Actual Budget25 Budget26 Revenue $ $20,697 $18,076 $51,082 $49,030 Expenditures Salaries/Benefits $15,634 $16,258 $15,447 $17,421 $16,217 Operating Expense 10,753 4,440 2,630 33,287 32,813 Capital Outlay 0 0 0 375 0
22 23 24 25 26
City of Lakeport, Budget Fiscal Year 2009/2010, Page 17. City of Lakeport, Budget Fiscal Year 2010/2011, Page 17 City of Lakeport, http://www.cityoflakeport.com/departments/home.aspx?deptID=74, July 13, 2010. City of Lakeport, Budget Fiscal Year 2009/2010, Page 16. City of Lakeport, Budget Fiscal Year 2010/2011, Page 16.
11
Total Expense
$26,386
$20,697
$18,076
$51,082
$49,030
The revenue for the City Attorney comes from the General Fund. The City Attorney is a part-time position. Additional information on Local Government Issues is found in Appendix A at the end of this report. 3.2 3.2.1 Development Services Planning
The City of Lakeport Community Development Department Planning Division is responsible for implementing City policies that direct the physical development of the City. This is accomplished through administration of the Citys Development Codes, including Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, environmental regulations, the Lakeport General Plan, and related Ordinances and Policies. Planning staff has responsibility for many other work priorities, including General Plan Update and administration, Code Enforcement, Nuisance Abatement, Vehicle Nuisance Abatement, Environmental Review and Mitigation Monitoring, Storm Water Regulations, GIS, and other programs.27 The staff for the Planning Department is as follows: Richard Knoll, Community Development/Redevelopment Director Phone: 707-263-8840 Email: rknoll@cityoflakeport.com Andrew Britton, Planning Services Manager Phone: 707-263-5613 x 28, Fax: 707-263-8584 Renee Perez, Department Secretary Phone: 707-263-5615 x 25, Fax: 707-263-8584
Email: abritton@cityoflakeport.com
Email: rperez@cityoflakeport.com
The budget for the Planning Department is as follows: City of Lakeport Budget Planning Department 1050 Description 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 Actual Actual Actual Budget28 Revenue $ $204,684 $187,167 $233,501 Expenditures Salaries/Benefits $163,328 $158,938 $88,057 $106,176 Operating Expense 81,945 45,553 96,881 125,325 Capital Outlay 19,956 194 2,228 2,000 Total Expense $265,228 $204,684 $187,167 $233,501 Most revenue for planning comes from the General Fund.
2010/2011 Budget29 $161,344 $89,975 71,368 0 $161,344
27 28 29
City of Lakeport, http://www.cityoflakeport.com/departments/home.aspx?deptID=39, October 28, 2010. City of Lakeport, Budget Fiscal Year 2009/2010, Page 18. City of Lakeport, Budget Fiscal Year 2010/2011, Page 18
12
3.2.2
Redevelopment
The Lakeport Redevelopment Agency was formed by the Lakeport City Council in 1986. The City Council formed the Agency, and the Council Members serve as the Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors. The Redevelopment Plan was adopted in June of 1999. The Redevelopment Project Area is the land in the City of Lakeport which is within the jurisdiction of the Redevelopment Agency and is subject to the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan. The Project Area contains 612 acres and covers the downtown commercial area, land to the west, and land to the south. The Lakeport Redevelopment Plan has ten goals as follows: 1. The elimination of blight which, among other things, includes buildings that are unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work in, incompatible and uneconomic land uses, small and irregular lots, obsolete and aged building types, substandard alleys and inadequate or deteriorated public improvements, facilities, and utilities. 2. Facilitating the assembly of land, through conventional means without the use of eminent domain, into parcels suitable for modern development with improved pedestrian and vehicular circulation. 3. The replanning, redesign, and redevelopment of areas which are stagnant or improperly used. 4. The provision of opportunities for participation by owners and tenants in the revitalization of their properties. 5. The strengthening of retail and other commercial functions in the Project Area. 6. The strengthening of the economic base of the Project Area and the community by installing needed improvements to stimulate new residential, commercial, and industrial expansion; employment; and social and economic growth. 7. The provision of adequate land for parking and open spaces. 8. The establishment and implementation of performance criteria to assure high site design standards and environmental quality and other design elements which provide unity and integrity to the entire Project. 9. The expansion, improvement, and preservation of housing for low- and moderate-income persons. 10. The installation of new, or replacement of existing, public improvements, facilities, and utilities in areas which are currently inadequately served. The Lakeport Redevelopment Plan expressly indicates that the Agency does not have
13
the power to take private property for public use. Property can be purchased by the Redevelopment Agency through a negotiation process. The Lakeport Redevelopment Agencys function is to assist in the implementation of development and rehabilitation projects which might not be able to proceed without assistance. Specifically, homeowners, apartment owners, and local businesses can be assisted, downtown improvements will be made, and development incentives offered. In addition, the Agency will construct certain public improvements in the Project Area, such as street, drainage, sewer, and water improvements. The City Council serves as the Board of Directors of the Lakeport Redevelopment Agency and is responsible for its activities. The Planning Commission reviews all plans and drawings for projects in the City, including the Project Area. There are three potential sources of funds for the Agency activities as follows: 1. The Agency receives property tax increments from the normal increases in assessments of property within the Project Area. These funds, while limited, can be used to help finance most of the proposed public projects and housing improvements within the Project Area. With the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan the distribution of property tax funds within the Project Area are frozen. As the majority of property appreciates or is developed, all additional property taxes paid within the Project Area go to the Lakeport Redevelopment Agency (instead of being distributed throughout the entire County). The Agency is required to share a portion of the new revenues with various taxing entities within the Project Area to help offset any financial impacts. The Agency has no authority to tax, and no increase in taxes can be levied by the Agency. 2. The Agency may borrow capital. This financing is not secured by the City, but instead is guaranteed to be paid back out of future property tax increment revenues. The Redevelopment Agency is eligible to apply for and receive certain types of grant funding from both the State and Federal government. One of the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan is to provide for the rehabilitation of residential property and the development of new housing. In addition to providing some drainage, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street, sewer, and water improvements, the Agency intends to make funds available for voluntary use by homeowners in fixing up their homes. Residential areas have been included because there is a need to provide public improvements and financial assistance for housing in the Project Area. 30
3.
30
City of Lakeport, http://www.cityoflakeport.com/departments/home.aspx?deptid=87, July 13, 2010.
14
The Budget for the Redevelopment Agency is shown below: City of Lakeport Budget Redevelopment Agency Fund 212 Description 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 Actual Actual Actual Budget31 Budget32 Revenue $722,338 $783,887 $2,141,912 $4,383,208 *$954,219 Expenditures Salaries/Benefits $159,140 $192,112 $281,335 $320,970 $408,548 Operating Expense 269,143 249,261 565,414 1,023,689 931,142 Capital Outlay 21,162 5,444 1,107,473 3,785,000 67,500 Transfers Out 145,395 60,000 0 0 0 Total Expense $594,840 $506,818 $1,954,222 $5,129,659 $1,407,190
*Primarily Tax Increment Revenue and does not include Bond Proceeds of $304,214 which is spent in Capital Outlay of $3,404,000 but shown as a separate budget.
The budget for the Redevelopment Agency for 2010/2011 is shown as two separate budgets totaling $4,811,190 (closer to the total for 2009-2010). It is shown as two separate budgets in the 2010-2011budget document because Capital Outlay of $3,404,000 is shown as a separate budget. 3.2.3 Building
Tom Carlton is the Building Official for the City of Lakeport. Contact information for the Building Department is as follows: Phone: 707-263-3056 x 14 Fax: 707-263-9413 Email: tcarlton@cityoflakeport.com
The City of Lakeport Community Development Department Building Division is responsible for enforcement of the California Building Standards Code. These are the State laws that regulate the construction of all buildings and structures. The Building Division reviews and approves construction plans, and issues building permits. Once permits are issued, the building inspector inspects the construction projects to ensure compliance with approved plans and state and local laws. When the projects have passed all inspections and have met all other requirements of the City, County, and State agencies, the Building Inspector will sign off on the permit and in some cases issue a Certificate of Occupancy. The Building Division does not have jurisdiction for public schools, hospitals, or for tenant spaces within mobile home parks. Permits are required for retrofit manufactured home foundations and structures separate from the manufactured home on private land. Building permit records and copies of approved plans are kept on file at the City as required by state law. These records are available for public access at the Building Department located at City Hall. There is a retrieval fee for any records that are requested that have been archived.33
31 32 33
City of Lakeport, Budget Fiscal Year 2009/2010, Pages 30-31. City of Lakeport, Budget Fiscal Year 2010/2010, Pages 30-31. City of Lakeport, http://www.cityoflakeport.com/departments/home.aspx?deptid=81, October 28, 2010.
15
The Budget for the Building Inspection Department is shown below: City of Lakeport Budget Building Inspection Department 1051 Description 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 Actual Actual Actual Budget34 Budget35 Revenue $ $131,724 $115,267 $154,215 $136,096 Expenditures Salaries/Benefits $112,457 $117,859 $101,100 $118,021 $108,217 Operating Expense 16,640 13,866 11,978 31,694 27,880 Capital Outlay 0 0 2,189 4,500 0 Total Expense $129,098 $131,724 $115,267 $154,215 $136,096 The Building Inspection Department receives revenue from the General Fund. The main expense is for salaries. 3.2.4 City Engineer
The City Engineer is Scott Harter. The contact information is as follows: Phone: 707-263-5615 x 11, Fax: 707-263-9413 Email: sharter@cityoflakeport.com Brian Everhart is the Engineering Technician with contact information as follows: Phone: 263-5614 x19 Email: beverhart@cityoflakeport.com The City of Lakeport Engineering Division performs the following five functions: 1. Provides pre-development engineering information to builders and developers (the City maintains an extensive GIS system to map utilities and infrastructure) 2. Develops and maintains standards for public facility installation by developers 3. Reviews and recommends action on proposed subdivisions of land 4. Provides engineering review of developer plans and specifications for public and semi-public improvements including grading, drainage, and streets, as well as inspecting such improvements when installed 5. Provides engineering design of projects as directed by the City Manager and the City Council The Engineering Division supervises the maintenance of engineering drawings and files for and within the City limits, which are located at City Hall. The five goals of the Engineering Division are as follows: Provide various engineering services, surveying services, and technical assistance to the various City departments.
34 35
City of Lakeport, Budget Fiscal Year 2009/2010, Page 19. City of Lakeport, Budget Fiscal Year 2010/2011, Page 19.
16
Provide timely engineering review for proposed development projects. Provide engineering review and inspection oversight for projects constructed on public property. Provide floodplain administration, solid waste disposal administration and associated public information services. Provide consultation regarding city engineering for the City Manager and the City Council.36
The Budget for the City Engineer Department is as follows: City of Lakeport Budget City Engineer Department 1052 Description 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 Actual Actual Actual Budget37 Revenue $ $53,049 $26,907 $64,760 Expenditures Salaries/Benefits $43,281 $41,935 $16,765 $45,344 Operating Expense 15,409 10,986 10,142 17,816 Capital Outlay 0 127 0 1,600 Total Expense $58,689 $53,049 $26,907 $64,760
2010/2011 Budget38 $59,376 $43,022 $15,953 400 $59,376
The City Engineer Department revenue is primarily from the General Fund and the main expense is for salaries. 3.3 3.3.1 Fire Protection Fire Protection - Issues
The following is a general discussion of five fire protection issues including mutual aid, dispatch, response times, staffing and water supply: A. Fire Protection Mutual Aid Issues
Most of the fire protection and EMS providers primarily serve their own jurisdictions. Given the critical need for rapid response, however, there are extensive mutual aid efforts that cross jurisdictional boundaries. Mutual aid refers to reciprocal services provided under a mutual aid agreement, a prearranged plan and contract between agencies for reciprocal assistance upon request by the first-response agency. In addition, the jurisdictions rely on automatic aid primarily for coverage of areas with street access limitations and freeways. Automatic aid refers to reciprocal services provided under an automatic aid agreement, a prearranged plan or contract between agencies for an automatic response for services with no need for a request to be made.
36 37 38
City of Lakeport, http://www.cityoflakeport.com/departments/home.aspx?deptid=38, October 28, 2010. City of Lakeport, Budget Fiscal Year 2009/2010, Page 20. City of Lakeport, Budget Fiscal Year 2010/2011, Page 20.
17
B.
Fire and EMS Dispatch Issues
Dispatch for fire and medical calls is increasingly becoming regionalized and specialized. This increased regionalization and specialization is motivated by the following nine factors: 1) Constituents increasingly expect emergency medical dispatching (EMD), which involves over-the-phone medical procedure instructions to the 911 caller and requires specialized staff. Paramedics increasingly rely on EMD, which also involves preparing the paramedic en route for the type of medical emergency and procedures. Dispatch technology and protocols have become increasingly complex. Modern technology has enabled better measurement and regulatory oversight of Fire Department (FD) response times, and increased pressure for FDs to meet response time guidelines. FDs need standard communication protocols due to their reliance on mutual aid. Dispatching of calls from cell phones is particularly inefficient due to multiple transfers, length of time the caller spends on hold, and lack of location information. Response times are further delayed when callers that are unfamiliar with the area are unable to describe rural locations to the dispatch personnel. All new cell phones are now equipped with GPS; however, it will take a few years for all old phones to be replaced by phones with GPS capability and/or construction of specialized cell phone towers. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) recommends a 60-second standard for dispatch time, the time between the placement of the 911 call and the notification of the emergency responders. The Center for Public Safety Excellence recommends a 50-second benchmark for dispatch time. There are clear economies of scale in providing modern fire and medical dispatch services. Fire Protection and EMS Response Time Issues
30
2)
3) 4)
5) 6)
7)
8)
9)
C.
Response times reflect the time elapsed between the dispatch of personnel and the arrival of the first responder on the scene. For fire and paramedic service, there are service standards relating to response times, dispatch times, staffing, and water flow. Particularly in cases involving patients who have stopped breathing or are suffering from heart attacks, the chances of survival improve when the patient receives medical care quickly.
The National Fire Protection Association is a non-profit association of fire chiefs, firefighters, manufacturers and consultants.
30
18
Similarly, a quick fire suppression response can potentially prevent a structure fire from reaching the flashover point at which very rapid fire spreading occursgenerally in 31 less than 10 minutes. The guideline established by the NFPA for fire response times is six minutes at least 90% of the time, with response time measured from the 911-call time to the arrival time 32 of the first-responder at the scene. The fire response time guideline established by the Center for Public Safety Excellence (formerly the Commission on Fire Accreditation International) is 5 minutes, 50 seconds 33 at least 90% of the time. D. Fire Protection Staffing Issues
For structure fires, NFPA recommends that the response team include 14 personnela commander, five water supply line operators, a two-person search and rescue team, a two-person ventilation team, a two-person initial rapid intervention crew, and two support people. The NFPA guidelines require fire departments to establish overall staffing levels to meet response time standards, and to consider the hazard to human life, firefighter safety, potential property loss, and the firefighting approach. NFPA recommends that each engine, ladder or truck company be staffed by four onduty firefighters, and that at least four firefighters (two in and two out), each with protective clothing and respiratory protection, be on scene to initiate fire-fighting inside a structure. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standard requires that when two firefighters enter a structure fire, two will remain on the outside to assist in rescue activities.39 For emergency medical response with advanced life support needs, NFPA recommends the response team include two paramedics and two basic-level emergency medical technicians. E. Fire Protection Water Supply Issues
For structure fires, NFPA recommends the availability of an uninterrupted water supply for 30 minutes with enough pressure to apply at least 400 gallons of water per minute.
31
NFPA Standard 1710, 2004. Guideline for a full structure fire is response within ten minutes by a 12-15 person response team at least 90% of the time. 33 Commission on Fire Accreditation International, 2000 39 29 CFR 1910.134.
32
19
3.3.2
City of Lakeport Fire Protection
The Lakeport Fire Protection District provides fire protection and emergency medical services in and around the City of Lakeport. The District is the result of a merger in 2000 in which the District merged with the City of Lakeports Fire Department. The Lakeport Fire Protection District (LFPD) is an independent Fire District which serves the City of Lakeport and unincorporated Lakeport areas. There are two stations in the District as follows: 1) Station 50 which is the Main Fire Station, located at 445 North Main Street 2) Station 52 is the Districts Sub-Station located at 3600 Hill Road. The main station is staffed with four personnel on duty at all times.40 The LFPD's website is located at lakeportfire.com. The Phone Number for the District is 707-263-4396. The ISO rating in town is 4. Fire protection equipment includes the following:41 4 Ambulances 1 Utility Truck 1 Air Trailer 4 Engines 1 Water Tender 1 Ladder Truck The paid staff includes 1 Chief, 1 Deputy Chief, 3 Captains, 6 Firefighters, and 1 District Secretary. (Six of the staff members are qualified as paramedics.) The volunteer staff includes 8 Fire Apparatus Engineers, and 12 Firefighters. (Four volunteers are qualified as paramedics.)42 The mission of the District is as follows: The Lakeport Fire Protection Districts mission is to be a leading emergency service Department by: Meeting the needs of our community in fire prevention, fire suppression, and rescue Utilizing and improving the dedication and skills of our people Constantly improving all of our services and operation In carrying out this mission The Lakeport Fire Protection District Will: Give top priority to firefighter safety and equipment concerns Encourage the professional and personal development of our members Work as teams to take full advantage of our skills, knowledge and creativity Communicate openly and honestly to our members and community to inspire trust and confidence43 The District provides ambulance services. The average response time for Fire/EMS services within the City of Lakeport boundaries is four to seven minutes for emergency calls and ten minutes for non-emergency calls.44 Travel time to specific emergencies is dependent upon distance from responding stations to the emergency, as well as the condition of roadways along the route. The average remote distance response time is
40 41 42 43 44
Lakeport Fire Protection District, http://www.lakeportfire.com/about/, October 28, 2010. City of Lakeport, http://www.cityoflakeport.com/residents/fire.aspx, October 28, 2010. Lakeport Fire Protection District, http://www.lakeportfire.com/about/staff_about.asp, May 7, 2011. Lakeport Fire Protection District http://www.lakeportfire.com/about/mission.asp, October 28, 2010. City of Lakeport, Draft South Main Street and Soda Bay Road Annexation Area Plan for Services, April 2011, Page 1-
4.
20
eight minutes. There are some remote areas within the District in which these response times are further extended, especially during winter months. Lakeport Fire Protection District responds to over 2,200 calls per year including structure and wildland fires, vehicle accidents, and medical aid.45 Activity for a typical month is shown below: October 2009 Monthly Report46 Number Percent Medical Assist 88 42 Inter-facility Transport 79 37 Traffic Accident 9 5 Fire Structure 0 Vehicle 0 Vegetation 2 Other 1 Total Fire 3 2 Hazmat 0 False Alarm 5 3 Good Intent Call 24 11 _____________________________________ Total 208 100.00
Other significant events: 1) Continue trial of Lifepak 15 cardiac monitor 2) Purchase EZ-IO equipment and conduct training for all paramedics 3) Seek funding options for Zoll Autopulse
3.4 3.4.1
Police Protection Law Enforcement Overview
Law enforcement will be discussed in general prior to examination of the City of Lakeport Police Department. The law enforcement overview will examine services, standards and crime clearance rates. A Law Enforcement Services
Although patrol is the most visible Police Department service, law enforcement agencies may provide a host of other public safety services including the following ten services: Dispatch Crime lab Bomb squad Special Weapons & Tactics (SWAT) teams Canine patrol assistance Search and rescue teams Temporary and long-term holding facilities Training Animal shelter
45 46
Lakeport Fire Protection District, http://www.lakeportfire.com/about/, October 28, 2010. http://www.lakeportfire.com/docs/october_2009_monthly_report_411.pdf, May 7, 2011.
21
Specialized patrol services These service areas are described below: Patrol services can be provided by officers traveling by vehicle, bicycle, horse, boat, helicopter, or on foot. Dispatch services include receiving 911 calls and notifying response units through emergency communication systems. Police dispatchers typically answer 911 calls related to both police and fire emergencies. For fire and medical emergencies, some police dispatchers may directly perform the dispatching while others may route calls to a dispatch center specialized in handling fire and medical emergencies. Crime laboratories provide analysis of latent fingerprints, questioned documents, firearms, controlled substances, toxicology, trace evidence, and DNA, and may provide crime scene evidence-gathering services. While some crime laboratories provide all of these services, other laboratories may provide only limited, frequently-used services such as latent fingerprints analysis and photographic work. Bomb squad services typically are provided by explosives experts, bomb-sniffing dogs and their handlers. Experts are needed to identify and defuse explosives with the assistance of dogs trained to detect and locate different types of explosives. Special weapons and tactics (SWAT) services are special response teams that handle complex, high-risk crimes and confrontations. SWAT teams provide not only traditional counter-sniper services, but also respond to hostage taking, barricaded suspects, and terrorist acts. SWAT teams may also serve high-risk warrants and protect dignitaries. SWAT team members are typically trained in special weapons as well as verbal tactics. Trained hostage negotiators are frequently an integral component of SWAT teams. Canine (K-9) units may be specially oriented toward drug detection, bomb detection, finding missing persons, or protecting police officers. Search and rescue services involve finding people who may be missing, lost, buried by debris, or trapped in dangerous situations on trails or cliffs. Search and rescue teams are typically coordinated by law enforcement agencies in collaboration with fire departments. Temporary holding services involve pre-arraignment incarceration of arrestees, and typically involve jailing for less than 72 hours. Long-term holding services involve incarceration of arraigned suspects. Most law enforcement agencies have some type of temporary holding facilities, but few have long-term facilities. Animal control services are often provided by law enforcement agencies and may involve capturing, sheltering and disposing of unclaimed animals.
22
B.
Law Enforcement Standards
The Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) is a national organization that functions as an independent accrediting authority. Law enforcement agencies may voluntarily choose to apply for CALEA accreditation. CALEA offers an accreditation program as well as a law enforcement recognition program in which the agency is required to meet a more modest list of standards. CALEA law enforcement accreditation does not require the law enforcement agency to meet specific benchmarks in terms of response time, staffing levels or crime clearance rates. CALEA accreditation requires the police service provider to pass inspection and to meet dozens of requirements such as annual documented performance evaluation of each employee, investigation of all complaints against the agency and its employees, and annual review of allocation and distribution of personnel. The California Peace Officers Association (CPOA) has developed sample law enforcement agency policies on use of force, use of safety belts, review of complaints about personnel, fitness for duty evaluations, and law enforcement values. For example, the sample policy on conducting reviews states, it should be standard practice for all law enforcement agencies to conduct comprehensive and thorough investigations into any allegation of misconduct or substandard service, whether such allegations are from citizen complaints or internally generated. Hence, policies relating to ethics and evaluation standards are readily available to law enforcement agencies. The California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) has developed standards for the testing and selection of police officer applicants as well as the training of police officers, dispatchers and detectives. C. Crime Clearance Rates
The effectiveness of a law enforcement agency can be gauged by many factors, including crime clearance rates or the proportion of crimes that are solved. There are no standards or guidelines on the proportion of crimes that should be cleared. Cleared crimes refer to offenses for which at least one person was arrested, charged with the offense, and turned over to the appropriate court for prosecution. A crime is also considered cleared by exceptional means if the offender dies, the victim refuses to cooperate or extradition is denied. 3.4.2 City of Lakeport Police Department
History47 This brief history of the Lakeport Police Department (LPD) was compiled by Chief Thomas W. Engstrom, on December 1, 2000. Chief Engstrom obtained the information from the City Council minutes dating back to April, 1888.
47
City of Lakeport, http://www.cityoflakeport.com/departments/page.aspx?deptID=76&id=52, July 13, 2010.
23
The Town of Lakeport, originally called Forbestown, was incorporated on April 30, 1888. The first law enforcement official was W.M. Woods, the Town Marshal. He was elected to a 2-year term and paid the sum of $15 per month. (See attached list of Town Marshals and Police Chiefs). The Town Council busily began the task of drafting Lakeports first ordinances. The first speeding law prevented citizens from galloping their horses down Main Street. Shortly thereafter, following the invention of the automobile, the Council outlawed vehicles on Main Street on Sundays. The cars scared the horses pulling buggies to church. Over the years, some of the elections for Marshal were very close. In 1900, R.E. Barry ran against the incumbent, Marshal J.E. Mitchell. Barry won the election by just 2 votes, 83 to 81. Two years later in 1902, Mitchell again tried to win re-election, this time against a newcomer, R.J. Hammack. Once again Mitchell lost the election, by a vote of 56 to 53. By 1918, the Marshals salary was increased to $20 per month and then jumped to $75 per month in 1920, when the Marshal also served as Lakeports Night Watchman. This required the Marshal to be available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The Marshal became a one-man police department. The Town Council changed the Marshals position from elected to appointed in 1920. From that time on, the Marshal, and eventually every Chief of Police, served at the pleasure of the Town or City Council. This, of course, had a down side. On one occasion, the incumbent Marshal asked the Council for a two week paid vacation. His request was granted. At the next Council Meeting, while the Marshal was away on vacation, the Town Council declared the Marshals position vacant. The Council instructed the Clerk to inform the Marshal in writing that his performance was less than satisfactory and that his services were no longer needed. Just that fast, he was unemployed. Marshals drove their personal vehicles while on-duty. They also furnished a red light and siren for their vehicle and used their own revolver and holster. When one particular Marshal was terminated, the Council purchased the light, siren, revolver, and holster from him for $25 and gave it to his successor. On March 3, 1930, the Town Council changed the name of Lakeport to the City of Lakeport. George E. Moore, who was serving as Town Marshal, became the Citys first Chief of Police. Since 1888, Lakeport has had 15 Town Marshals and 22 Chiefs of Police through the year 2000. The longest tenure of any Chief or Marshal was 15 years. Chief James L. Campbell served from March, 1979 to April, 1994. Campbell began his career with Lakeport as a Police Officer in 1966, when the department consisted of 6 sworn officers. When Chief Campbell retired in 1994, the department had doubled in size to 12 officers.
24
The shortest tenure of any Chief is one month. Chief Robert H. Mammen was hired in March, 1969, having previously served as Lieutenant for the Los Angeles Police Department. Chief Mammen accepted the position, but resigned one month later when his wife refused to move to Lakeport. To his credit, Chief Mammen did provide the Council with a thorough study of LPD prior to his departure. That study was the basis for many improvements in the police department over the next few years. To this writer, the most inspirational Chief was Newton A. Wilcox, who served from 1930 to 1934. He died while in office at age 66. At the Chiefs funeral, Mayor H.G. Crawford read City Resolution 1933-1934 A-7, which stated in part: Newton A. Wilcox performed his duty in a manner to be an example for other police officers. To him all men were equal before the law. He showed no favoritism. He was honest and conscientious, fearless and courageous for what he believed to be right, modest and unassuming, friendly and affable. He was liked by all. No greater tribute could be paid to any police officer. Chief Wilcox lived by a code of ethics that we would all do well to follow. Mission48 The Lakeport Police Department is dedicated to providing a safe environment for those who live, work and visit in the City of Lakeport. The Department is committed to providing high quality law enforcement services consistent with professional standards and best police practices, and to protecting and respecting the rights of all citizens. The Department provides 24-hour police services to the Lakeport community. Services include uniformed patrol and traffic enforcement, parking enforcement, canine patrol, narcotics task force services, community relations and crime prevention. Contact information for the Lakeport Police Department is as follows: Lakeport Police Department, 916 North Forbes Street, Lakeport, CA 95453 Emergency 9-1-1 Non-Emergency Number (707) 263-5491 Fax Number (707) 263-3846 E-Mail: info@lakeportpolice.org The Lakeport Police Department is committed to working as a partner with the community and City government to provide a safe environment to live, work, visit, run a business or raise a family. The City enjoys a very low crime rate and provides an exceptional quality of life. According to the Draft South Main Street and Soda Bay Road Annexation Area Plan for Services, The Department maintains an officer to population ratio of 2.5 officers per 1,000 residents, which is above the State average. Staffing of the Department consists of 9 sworn officers, two additional non-sworn personnel and six volunteers. Although 10
48
25
sworn officers are budgeted for each year staffing levels have fluctuated between 8 and 10 officers in recent times.49 According to the Citys website, the Police Department has a dedicated staff as follows:50 Brad Rasmussen, Interim Police Chief James Bell - Police Officer Jason Ferguson - Police Sergeant Stephanie Green - School Resource Officer Destry Henderson - Police Detective Jarvis Leishman - Police Officer Kevin Odom - Police Sergeant Louis Riccardi - Police Detective Rick Santor - Police Officer Dale Stoebe - Police Sergeant Norman Taylor - Police Officer Ellen Dills - Police Records Director Astrid Vera - Community Service Officer Bill Mooney - Property Officer Pastor Mike Suski - Police Chaplain Theresa Harter - Police Volunteer Jonathan McAloon - Police Volunteer Patricia McFarland - Police Volunteer Debbie England - Police Volunteer Janine Lowe - Police Volunteer Robert Marks - Police Volunteer
Robert Jordan - Police Reserve Mike Williams - Reserve Police Officer The number of violent crimes recorded by the FBI in 2003 was 19. The number of murders and homicides was 0. The violent crime rate was 3.7 per 1,000 people. 51 3.4.3 Public Safety Finances The City of Lakeport reports public safety expenses in three separate budgets: Police Department, Animal Control and Park Ranger as follows: City of Lakeport Budget Police Department 2010 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 Actual Actual Actual Budget52 $ $1,794,194 $1,490,827 $1,771,554 $1,440,367 355,640 59,669 $1,855,677 $1,493,230 300,963 0 $1,794,194 $1,262,542 228,285 0 $1,490,827 $1,538,553 235,218 73,000 $1,846,771
Description
Revenue Expenditures Salaries/Benefits Operating Expense Capital Outlay Total Expense
2010/2011 Budget53 $1,782,579 $1,453,016 256,563 73,000 $1,782,579
The revenue for the Police Department comes from the General Fund. The Police Department is expensive but it is important to the City. The reductions from 2009-2010 to 2010-2011 are from moving some Park Ranger expenses into the Park Ranger Budget (shown below).
49
City of Lakeport, Draft South Main Street and Soda Bay Road Annexation Area Plan for Services, April 2011, Page 1City of Lakeport, http://www.cityoflakeport.com/departments/page.aspx?deptID=76&id=50, May 8, 2011. http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/genInfo.php?locIndex=10389, July 4, 2010 City of Lakeport, Budget Fiscal Year 2009/2010, Page 21. City of Lakeport, Budget Fiscal Year 2010/2011, Page 21.
2.
50 51 52 53
26
City of Lakeport Budget Animal Control Department 2020 Description 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 Actual Actual Actual Budget54 Budget55 Revenue $ $53,964 $17,831 $30,000 $30,000 Expenditures Contract Services $53,964 $53,964 $16,831 $30,000 $30,000 Capital Outlay 0 0 1,000 0 0 Total Expense $53,964 $53,964 $17,831 $30,000 $30,000 The revenue for Animal Control comes from the General Fund. This is a good example of using contracted services. This is a trend in local government and it is probably cheaper for Lakeport to contract for this service than it would be to have it done by an employee(s). City of Lakeport Budget Park Ranger Department 2040 Description 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 Actual Actual Actual Budget56 Budget57 Revenue $ $ $ $20,000 $20,403 Expenditures Benefits $ $ $ $1,165 $1,193 Part-time Salary 15,226 15,600 Special Supplies 0 0 0 3,610 3,610 Total Expense $ $ $ $20,000 $20,403 The revenue for the Park Ranger comes from the General Fund. The Park Ranger is a part-time position. 3.5 3.5.1 Water Service Domestic Water Supply, Treatment and Distribution: Background
Small community water treatment has posed an enormous problem for the drinking water regulatory community, drinking water professionals, and the people living in these communities. The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and subsequent regulations require that all water in the distribution system and at every tap connected to the distribution system comply. Water treatment usually consists of filtration and disinfection. Water treatment standards essentially mandate central treatment for drinking water prior to entering the distribution system. No water that exceeds a primary standard may be used for drinking water. Primary standards have been developed to protect human health and are rigorously enforced by the California Department of Health Services. For very small communities, this may be a cost that poses an undue burden. Often it could be a cost that has negative public health implications. For a very low-income family, the money spent on water treatment may not be available for other essentials.
54 55 56 57
City of Lakeport, Budget Fiscal Year 2009/2010, Page 22. City of Lakeport, Budget Fiscal Year 2010/2011, Page 22 City of Lakeport, Budget Fiscal Year 2009/2010, Page 23. City of Lakeport, Budget Fiscal Year 2010/2011, Page 23.
27
Rather than spend that money, a community may apply for a variance or exemption.58 Exemptions and variances are intended to be temporary solutions to regulatory compliance. They may, however, extend indefinitely leaving a community with no water that meets the regulation.59 Secondary standards are intended to protect the taste, odor or appearance of drinking water. California Code requires that, if a community water system experiences an exceedance of certain secondary standard, quarterly sampling must be initiated. Compliance is then determined based upon the average of four consecutive quarterly samples. Non-compliant water must then be treated to meet the secondary standards.60 Water distribution systems carry water for both domestic use and for fire protection. The distribution system should be sized to perform both functions simultaneously, delivering sufficient water volume and pressure. Pipes should be made of durable and corrosionresistant materials, and alignments located in areas that are easy to access for repairs and maintenance.61 Fire hydrants should be placed a maximum of 600 feet apart along the water mains and a maximum of 500 feet from the end of water lines.62 Some water loss in the distribution system can be expected. Water loss is the difference between the volume of water pumped from the water supply well and the volume of water sold to users. A loss of water from 5% to 15% is considered acceptable.63 3.5.2 A. Water Sources Surface Water Rights
Water has always been an essential commodity in California and a complex system of water rights has developed. There are two main types of surface water rights as follows: Riparian rights Riparian rights are the highest priority water rights and are attached to land that borders natural waterways. Based on legal precedents, riparian rights water can only be used on the property adjacent to the waterway and users are prohibited from transferring their water. Previously, riparian rights secured unlimited water use. A later court case established that riparian rights water users must be held to a standard of reasonable use and are prohibited from waste, unreasonable use, or unreasonable methods of diversion.
A Variance or an Exemption is a State Department of Health Services permission to exceed an MCL or to not comply with a treatment technique under certain conditions. 59 NSF International, Feasibility of an Economically Sustainable Point-of-Use/Point-of-Entry Decentralized Public Water System Final Report, March 2005, p18. nsf.org/business/.../pdf/GrimesFinalReport_Dec05.pdf 60 Brelje & Race Consulting Civil Engineers, Preliminary Engineering Report Bonanza Springs Water System CSA #7 Lake County Special Districts, December 2006, p 8. 61 Brelje & Race Consulting Civil Engineers, Preliminary Engineering Report Bonanza Springs Water System CSA #7 Lake County Special Districts, December 2006, p. 10 62 Brelje & Race Consulting Civil Engineers, Preliminary Engineering Report Bonanza Springs Water System CSA #7 Lake County Special Districts, December 2006, p. 11 63 Brelje & Race Consulting Civil Engineers, Preliminary Engineering Report Starview Water System CSA #18 Lake County Special Districts, December 2006, p. 4.
58
28
Appropriative rights Appropriative rights are the second type of water rights and can be secured by properties that do not directly border waterways. Miners were the first to initiate this water rights system by posting a notice to divert water and secure the water right. Appropriative water rights were legally recognized in 1855 and are prioritized by a first in time, first in right hierarchy. Appropriative water rights must be put to beneficial use and can expire if the water is not used for a period of five years.64 According to the Lake County Water Inventory and Analysis, Conflicts developed between water users over the distinctions between riparian and appropriative water rights. In order to address these issues, the Water Commission Act of 1913 declared water a property of the State of California. The Water Commission Act also created a permit process to control water rights and established the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to govern the permit process. The Water Commission Act became the basis for appropriating water. The Act does not apply to riparian, appropriative, or groundwater rights established prior to 1914 (Pre-1914 rights). During years of water shortage, appropriative rights users must cut back their water use. The most recent right-holders are the most junior and are subject to the cutbacks first. Appropriative rights holders continue to be cut back in an inverse priority until the shortage is corrected. 65 B. Clear Lake Water Rights According to the Lake County Water Inventory and Analysis, Yolo County, to the southeast of Lake County, holds the majority of the water rights to Clear Lake, its tributaries, and Cache Creek (which drains the Lake). Most Lake County water purveyors do not have rights to Clear Lake and must enter into contracts with Yolo County to purchase Clear Lake surface water. Numerous water and ditch companies dating back to the late 1800s acquired appropriative water rights from Cache Creek and its source, Clear Lake. The Yolo Water and Power Company later obtained many of these companies. In 1912, the Yolo Water and Power Company made an application for water from Cache Creek, including Clear Lake and all the streams flowing into the Lake. Up to this point Lake County had never applied for water rights and so the water right was given to the Yolo Water and Power Company. Eventually the Clear Lake Water Company purchased the Yolo County Water and Power Company, which was then purchased by Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.
64 65
Lake County Watershed Protection District, Lake County Water Inventory and Analysis, March 2006, page 3-1. Lake County Watershed Protection District, Lake County Water Inventory and Analysis, March 2006, p 3-1 and 3-2.
29
Today the Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation Districts appropriative water right allows them to divert up to 150,000 acre-feet of water annually from Clear Lake with certain conditions. The Gopcevic Decree (1920) established Yolo Water and Powers water right for Clear Lake to be between 0 and 7.56 feet Rumsey66 and required the Lake to be operated between 0 and 7.56 feet Rumsey, with certain exceptions during flood conditions. The Solano Decree (1978, revised March 30, 1995) regulates summer Lake levels and the maximum amount of water that Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District can divert.67 C. Lake County Groundwater Overview
Lake County is actively monitoring groundwater use in the County as explained below: Groundwater is one of Lake Countys greatest natural resources. In an average year, groundwater meets about 60 percent of Lake Countys urban and agricultural water demands. The demand for water will increase significantly as Lake Countys population grows and agricultural production increases. Urban water demand is anticipated to increase from an average of 10,900 acre-feet per year to 19,738 acre-feet per year by the year 2040, an 81% increase. Depending on the type and rate of agricultural development, the current average agricultural water demand of 39,817 acre-feet per year may be minimal or as much as 48,387 acre-feet per year by the year 2040, a 21% increase.68 With the exception of areas near Clear Lake, nearly all the additional water demand is likely to be supplied by groundwater. In many basins, the ability to optimally use groundwater is affected by overdraft and water quality impacts, or limited by a lack of data, management, and coordination between water users. Effective management of groundwater basins is essential because groundwater will play a key role in meeting Lake Countys water needs. Lake County is committed to implementing effective, locally planned and controlled groundwater management programs.
The Rumsey Gauge is a measurement of the lake level that was established back in 1872 when Capt. Rumsey created a gauge to measure the various lake levels. He came up with a standard that is still used today. Rumsey decided that when water ceased to flow over the Grigsby Riffle, the lake would be at zero on his gauge. Zero Rumsey is equal to a height of 1318.256 feet above sea level. When water was above the riffle it would be called plus Rumsey, such as 1 foot, 2 feet and so on. Below the riffle, the lake level would be measured as minus Rumsey. All measurements were based on zero Rumsey at the Grigsby Riffle, which is located on Cache Creek, about two miles from the dam. Yolo County was originally allowed to take the lake level down to zero on the Rumsey Gauge, however in 1978, eight years after Indian Valley Reservoir was built, Yolo County made an agreement with Lake County to stop taking water out of Clear Lake at plus-1 foot on the Rumsey Gauge.( http://www.recordbee.com/ci_10424164?source=most_emailed) 67 Lake County Watershed Protection District, Lake County Water Inventory and Analysis, March 2006, p 3-2 and 3-3. 68 http://www.co.lake.ca.us/Government/DepartmentDirectory/Water_Resources/Division_Programs/Groundwater_Manage ment.htm
66
30
Lake County is also committed to partnerships with local agencies to coordinate and expand data monitoring activities that will provide necessary information for more effective groundwater management. Coordinated data collection at all levels and local planning and management will help to ensure that groundwater continues to serve the needs of Californians.69 D Lake County Watershed Protection District The Lake County Watershed Protection District is a dependent special district managed by the Lake County Department of Water Resources. The Lake County Board of Supervisors sits as the Watershed Protection Districts Board of Directors. Because of the Districts responsibilities regarding water resources, it is an authorized groundwater management agency as defined by the California Water Code (CWC) Section 10753 (a) and (b).70 The Lake County Watershed Protection District has developed a Groundwater Management Plan (GMP) to provide guidance in managing the groundwater resources of Lake County. Lake County has divided the County into Water Inventory Units. E. Scotts Valley Basin71 The Scotts Valley Groundwater Basin is the primary source of water supply for Lakeport and adjacent agricultural areas. It is west of Clear Lake in the Scotts Valley Inventory Unit. The basin includes Scotts Valley, the foothills between Scotts Valley and Clear Lake, and the foothills immediately to the south of Lakeport. Clear Lake borders the basin to the east and the Franciscan Formation borders the basin to the north, west and south. Scotts Creek flows through Scotts Valley and drains to the northwest around White Rock Mountain into the Upper Lake Basin. Over time, Scotts Creek has changed drainage directions and affected the development of the basin. Originally, Scotts Creek drained into Clear Lake during the deposition of the Quaternary Terrace Deposits. Clear Lake drained to the west, towards the Pacific Ocean at that time. Cache Creek then eroded back into the Cache Formation far enough to reach Clear Lake, and the lake started draining into Cache Creek to the east. Scotts Creek began to flow through Clear Lakes old drainage to the west, towards the Pacific Ocean. During this time, Scotts Creek eroded into the Quaternary Terrace Deposits, creating the depression that is now Scotts Valley. Scotts Creek deposited a layer of gravels in the bottom of Scotts Valley. A large landslide occurred in the Scotts Creek drainage, blocking its drainage to the west and creating a lake in Scotts Valley. The lake deposited the clay that makes up the floor of Scotts Valley today. Eventually Scotts Creek eroded a new channel, carving its present course
http://www.co.lake.ca.us/Government/DepartmentDirectory/Water_Resources/Division_Programs/Groundwater_Manage ment.htm 70 Lake County Watershed Protection District, Lake County Groundwater Management Plan, March 31, 2006, P 1-1. 71 Lake County Watershed Protection District, Lake County Groundwater Management Plan, March 31, 2006, Pp 2-15 to 2-17.
69
31
to Clear Lake around White Rock Mountain into the Upper Lake Basin to Clear Lake. The old drainage of Scotts Creek that was blocked by the landslide has filled up with water to form the Blue Lakes. F. Water-Bearing Formations Quaternary Alluvium: The channel deposits of Scotts Creek and the valley deposits in the southern portion of Scotts Valley are composed of Quaternary Alluvium. Older stream channels deposited by Scotts Creek also underlie Quaternary Lake and Floodplain Deposits in the northern portion of Scotts Valley. In the southern portion of the valley, the alluvium is exposed at the surface. It is 40 to 70 feet thick (Ott Water Engineers 1987) and is the recharge area for the valley. In the northern portion of the valley, where the alluvium is buried by lake deposits, the alluvium is 85-105 feet deep, is 5-10 feet thick, and is a confined groundwater aquifer (Wahler 1970). Wells completed in the confined portion of Quaternary Alluvium produce up to 600 gallons per minute and specific yield is estimated to vary between 20 and 25 percent (Wahler 1970). Quaternary Lake and Floodplain Deposits: The northern portion of Scotts Valley is underlain by lake deposits of clay ranging in thickness from 60 to 90 feet (DWR 1957). This clay layer acts as a confining layer for the northern portion of Scotts Valley, where it overlies Quaternary Alluvium. Permeability in lake deposits is low, and specific yield of the clays is about 3 percent (Wahler 1970). Quaternary Terrace Deposits: Quaternary Terrace deposits lie directly on bedrock and consist of poorly consolidated clay, silt, and sand, with some gravel. Quaternary Terrace deposits from the ridge that separates Scotts Valley from Clear Lake, and are exposed in foothills in the western and southern portions of the Scotts Valley Basin. The Quaternary Terrace Deposits also underlie the alluvium and lake deposits in Scotts Valley. The specific yield of terrace deposits is estimated to be between 5 and 10 percent, and wells in the formations sustain small yields of up to 60 gallons per minute (Wahler 1970). G. Groundwater Hydrogeology The south end of Scotts Valley serves as the principal recharge area for the entire valley (Wahler 1970). Surface water flow in Scotts Creek percolates into the aquifer in the southern portion of Scotts Valley at a rate of approximately 1,000 acre-feet per month (Wahler 1970). When Scotts Creek is not flowing, this recharge does not take place. Hydrographs show groundwater levels in the Scotts Valley Basin are shallow in the spring and experience wide fluctuations over the irrigation season. Water levels in the basin are on average 10 feet below the ground surface in the spring, and spring groundwater levels have remained generally constant over the last 40 years.
32
Spring to summer drawdown of the water table varies by position in the Scotts Valley Basin, with Scotts Valley experiencing larger drawdown than the rest of the basin. Spring to summer drawdown in the Scotts Valley ranges from 30 to 60 feet, and drawdown near Burger Lake and south of Lakeport is roughly 10 feet. Anecdotal information from groundwater users in Scotts Valley indicates that the summer drawdown is far enough to de-water some pumps. The general direction of groundwater flow in the Scotts Valley Basin is northward along Scotts Creek in the Scotts Valley portion of the basin, and eastward towards Clear Lake in the eastern and southern portions of the basin (Wahler 1970). Groundwater levels in the basin seem to completely recover each wet season, and overall there does not appear to be any increasing or decreasing trend in long term groundwater levels. Total groundwater in storage in Scotts Valley is approximately 5,900 acrefeet (Wahler 1970). DWR estimated usable storage to be 4,500 acre-feet (DWR 1957). Specific yield for the depth interval of 0 to 100 feet is approximately 8 % (DWR 1957). Average-year agricultural groundwater demand in the Scotts Valley basin is approximately 2,370 acre-feet per year. H. Groundwater Quality/Inelastic Land Surface Subsidence
Current published information regarding groundwater quality and inelastic land surface subsidence is unavailable. Anecdotal evidence in the form of elevated well casings (two to four feet above ground) indicates that the valley may have subsided by as much as four and one half feet. There have been no reports of groundwater quality issues associated with increased drawdown. 3.5.3 City of Lakeport Water Supply and Treatment
The City of Lakeport takes water from two sources: Clear Lake and the Scotts Valley Aquifer, both of which are located in the same watershed. In 2004 the City of Lakeport MSR reported that there are no records showing that the City of Lakeport applied for historical water rights until September 1995. On that date the City entered into an agreement with the Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Recorded in Lake County Document No. 95-016544, included in electronic materials), whereby both parties agreed that the Citys historical water rights were 750 acre-feet per year.72 Under the agreement, the 750 acre-feet of water is to be taken from wells that draw water from the Scotts Valley Aquifer. The agreement also allows the City to purchase 2,000 acre-feet of water from the Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District to be drawn from either Clear Lake or the Scotts Valley Aquifer. The agreement is valid until January 1, 2030; with an automatic 10 year extension (unless either party elects to terminate the agreement). The agreement states that in the event that there is
Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Amended Standard Agreement for Nonagricultural Water Sales Lake County Recorder, Document No. 95-016544.
72
33
a shortage of water available from Clear Lake, municipal water use around Clear Lake shall have priority over other uses.73 The City of Lakeport has four wells (two Scotts Creek wells and two Green Ranch wells) and a water treatment plant for the Clear Lake water. The four City wells pump water from the Scotts Valley Aquifer and have a combined maximum pumping capacity of 2.9 MGD.74 The two wells in Scotts Creek are the primary sources of supply during the months of May through October, while the wells at Green Ranch are the primary sources of supply during the winter months. The water treatment plant (WTP) for treating the water from Clear Lake has a maximum capacity of 1.5 MGD,75 and can be used year round to supplement the Citys well supply. The water treatment facility includes pH control, pre-ozonation, coagulation, upflow clarification, multimedia filtration, post-ozonation, activated carbon and chlorine disinfection. The water treatment facility is considered to be an advanced treatment process because it needs to treat Clear Lake water that is laden with algae.76 3.5.4 Water Division
The City of Lakeport website describes the Water Division as follows: The Water Division continuously monitors the quality of the water that is provided to its residents and holds the responsibility of providing safe drinking water as its highest priority. The division provides 24-hour service and support to the public by responding to customer concerns, emergency water breaks/repairs, and ensuring the City has high quality drinking water in adequate supply for fire fighting, domestic, and commercial use. The division operates and maintains 4 wells, a surface water treatment facility, and distribution system to the meter. The division also works with developers and customers on water service issues during project design, during service installation and future.77 The staff for the Water Division is as follows:78 Mark Brannigan, Director of Utilities / CLMSD Director Phone: (707) 263-3578, ext. 20 Email: mbrannigan@cityoflakeport.com Matt Johnson, Utilities Superintendent Phone: (707) 263-3578, ext.14 Email: lakewater@sbcglobal.net Jake Teschner, Water Div Op/MW-II Phone: (707) 263-3578 Email: jteschner@cityoflakeport.com
City of Lakeport, 2009 Recycle Feasibility Study Report, February 2010, prepared by Pace Engineering, Redding CA Page 4. 74 City of Lakeport, Draft South Main Street and Soda Bay Road Annexation Area Plan for Services, April 2011, Page 14. 75 City of Lakeport, Draft South Main Street and Soda Bay Road Annexation Area Plan for Services, April 2011, Page 15. 76 City of Lakeport, 2009 Recycle Feasibility Study Report, February 2010, prepared by Pace Engineering, Redding CA Page 4. 77 City of Lakeport, http://www.cityoflakeport.com/departments/home.aspx?deptid=47, October 29, 2010. 78 http://www.cityoflakeport.com/departments/page.aspx?deptID=47&id=80, May 8, 2011
73
34
3.5.5 A.
Water Service Finances Water Treatment Costs
Water production costs for the City are subject to many variables. The electrical power cost for producing water from the Water Treatment Plant is about $540 per million gallons ($174 per acre-foot), versus $130 dollars per million gallons (i.e., $42 per acrefoot) from the Scott Creek Wells. These costs do not include the costs for chemicals, operations, and maintenance at the Treatment Plant. The power cost alone is four times the greater for treating the Clear Lake water over the cost of pumping groundwater.79 B. Water Service Charges
Rate payers within the City of Lakeport are charged $16.69 for the first 1,000 cubic feet of water and $2.85 per 100 cubic feet above 1,000 cubic feet, depending on monthly usage. This would be the same as $1,230 per acre-foot of potable water.80 The complete rate schedule is shown in Appendix B at the end of this report and is available on the Citys website. C. Water Treatment Budget
The Water System is funded through Enterprise Funds as follows:81 Enterprise Fund 501 Water Utility Maintenance and Operations Fund: Chapter 13.04 of the Lakeport Municipal Code provides the authority for the City to operate the water system. Revenues (fees and charges) are collected to pay for service (water) received. Enterprise Fund 502 Water Expansion Fund: Assessments on new development to pay for distribution system, plan preservation and expansion. Consultant completing water/sewer rate study recommended that a depreciation account be established for annual transfer from M&O Fund. The Budget for the Water Enterprise Fund 501 showed the following: City of Lakeport Budget Water Maintenance & Operations Fund 501 Description 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 Actual Actual Actual Budget82 Budget83 Revenue $1,214,131 $1,249,685 $1,273,633 $1,258,456 $1,846,584 Expenditures Salaries/Benefits $665,981 $722,500 $668,800 $622,196 $591,709 Operating Expense 746,614 588,725 547,313 657,619 698,989 Capital Outlay 21,896 13,774 16,507 23,000 0 Total Expense $1,434,491 $1,324,999 $1,232,619 $1,302,815 $1,904,998
79
City of Lakeport, 2009 Recycle Feasibility Study Report, February 2010, prepared by Pace Engineering, Redding CA Page 4. 80 City of Lakeport, 2009 Recycle Feasibility Study Report, February 2010, prepared by Pace Engineering, Redding CA Page 7. 81 City of Lakeport, Budget Fiscal Year 2009/2010, Page 8. 82 City of Lakeport, Budget Fiscal Year 2009/2010, Pages 44-45. 83 City of Lakeport, Budget Fiscal Year 2010/2011, Pages 47-48.
35
Funds from years where the revenue is greater than the expense are used to make up the difference when the revenue is less than the expense. The revenue comes primarily from water service charges. 3.5.6 City of Lakeport Water Service Master Plan
The Citys 2008 Master Water Plan states that the Maximum Daily Demand (MDD) for water was 1.82 MGD at that time and the production capability was 2.7 MGD so that the City had adequate water. The Master Water Plan predicted that the Citys growth rate for the next twenty years would be 1.1 percent per year. Based on this predicted growth the Citys Maximum Daily Demand for water would be 2.3 MGD by 2028 which is still below the estimated firm production capability of the system. However, the Citys production capacity is reliant on the Green Ranch Wells that may be subject to reductions in capacity due to drought conditions and land ownership problems.84 3.6 3.6.1 Wastewater Service Wastewater Treatment Overview
Wastewater is the water that drains from sinks, showers, washers, and toilets. Wastewater also includes water used for some outdoor purposes, such as draining chlorinated pool water, commercial car washes and industrial processes. Underground sanitary sewer pipelines carry sewage to a wastewater treatment plant, where it is treated, sanitized and discharged. Wastewater Treatment demand management strategies include the following: Sewer infiltration and inflow (I&I) control Industrial pretreatment and recycling Water conservation Service providers can reduce infiltration and inflow with capital improvements, such as pipeline rehabilitation, manhole cover replacement, and root eradication. They can also address sources on private property, such as broken service lines, uncapped cleanouts and exterior drains, through public education, incentives and regulatory strategies. Communities use various techniques to prohibit discharge of unwanted pollutants or to reduce the quantity and strength of wastewater discharged to sewers. These techniques include the following: 1) Permit limitations on the strength and contaminant levels of industrial and commercial wastewater 2) Increased rates or surcharges on high-strength wastes 3) Incentives or requirements for water recycling and reuse within the industrial or commercial operation Water conservation measures are effective for reducing average wastewater flows, but have less impact on peak flows, which are usually strongly influenced by infiltration and inflow contributions. Water conservation has little or no impact on organic loading to the treatment plant.
84
City of Lakeport, 2009 Recycle Feasibility Study Report, February 2010, prepared by Pace Engineering, Redding CA Page 7.
36
3.6.2
City of Lakeport Wastewater Treatment System
Safe, responsive, and reliable sewer service is an integral component to the purpose of the City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District. Its mission is to provide these things, while maintaining high quality customer service, protecting the environment, and supporting economic development within the City through maintenance of, and improvement to, the community infrastructure. The mission statement of the District reflects that sentiment: The [District] is dedicated to fostering a safe and picturesque environment that enhances the quality of life for our community; it is our responsibility to promote the health and safety of City residents and visitors. We are committed to being responsive to the needs of the community, exercising innovation in sustaining and growing a vibrant place in which to live, work, and do business. The Citys website describes the Sewer Division as follows: The Sewer division provides collection, treatment, and disposal of sewage in a manner compliant with the health and safety needs of the public and environment as its top priority. The Sewer division provides 24-hour service and support to the public by responding to customer concerns, emergency sewer stoppages, and ensures sewer system functionality. The division operates and maintains 8 sewer lift stations, a secondary treatment and disposal facility, and a collection system to the customers property line. The division works with developers and customers on sewer service issues during project design, service installation, and future needs. The division also inspects the collection system for Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) problems that require remediation to restore system capacity.85 Contact information for the District is as follows:86 Position/Title City Manager CLMSD Director City Engineer Utilities Superintendent Building Official Wastewater Facilities Supervisor Wastewater Facilities Operator I Construction Supervisor I&I Maintenance Worker Name Margaret Silveira Mark Brannigan Scott Harter Matt Johnson Tom Carlton Carlos Pradomeza Chris Brians Rich Johnson Cesar Arredondo Telephone Number (707) 263-5615, ext. 32 (707) 263-5615, ext. 20 (707) 263-5615, ext. 11 (707) 349-9493 (707) 263-5615, ext. 14 (707) 245-7154 (707) 813-7647 (707) 245-6753 (707) 349-3126
85 86
City of Lakeport, http://www.cityoflakeport.com/departments/home.aspx?deptid=48, October 29, 2010. City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District, Sewer System Management Plan, 2010, Page 13.
37
A.
History of Wastewater Treatment
The Citys original wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), located at Larrecou Lane, was constructed in 1939. It was expanded in 1959, and again in 1979. The original plant used a series of clarifiers and a trickling filter to treat the wastewater prior to pumping it to an effluent reservoir where it is stored and used for irrigation on City-operated pastures.87 The City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District (CLMSD) collection system involves all of the City of Lakeport south of Sixteenth Street and County areas in the South Main Street / Soda Bay Road areas. City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District (CLMSD) provides collection and treatment of wastewater collected in and around the City of Lakeport. The collection system that serves Assessment District 9-1 (Lands End, Holiday Cove, and Reeves Point), as well as Assessment District 9-3 (South Lakeport), is maintained by the Lake County Sanitation District (LACOSAN). However, the effluent is treated and disposed of at the City of Lakeports Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facility. Wastewater flows in the northern portion of the CLMSD can be directed to the County collection system.88 The City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District is governed by a board of directors, whose members also serve as the City Council.89 The Districts authorized representative in all wastewater collection system matters is the CLMSD Director, who is authorized to certify electronic spill reports submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board. A mutual service agreement between the City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District and the Lake County Sanitation District is implemented as follows:
CLMSD accepts and delivers sewer flows to Lake County Special Districts and operates under a mutual aid agreement to do so. CLMSD has the ability to deliver flows to the County in the northern part of the district and receive flows in the south. Flow acceptance or delivery is managed through request by telephone between the City and County district superintendents. Both agencies track the flows delivered and accepted and invoice one another for those services at a mutually agreed upon rate. 90
B. Modern Wastewater Treatment
The City of Lakeports existing wastewater treatment and reclamation facilities, at Linda Lane, were upgraded in 1991 to an average dry weather flow (ADWF) capacity of 1.0 MGD and a peak wet weather capacity of 3.0 MGD. The Citys wastewater is collected and pumped to the Citys wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) where the wastewater is treated via the secondary treatment facility. The unit processes of the WWTP consist of a headworks with a mechanical bar screen, two parallel earthen aeration basins with two cells, an effluent pump station, 48-inch
87
City of Lakeport, 2009 Recycle Feasibility Study Report, February 2010, prepared by Pace Engineering, Redding, California, Page 7. 88 City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District, Sewer System Management Plan, Page 18, 2010. 89 City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District, Sewer System Management Plan, Page 2, 2010. 90 City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District, Sewer System Management Plan, Page 61, 2010.
38
diameter 650-foot chlorine contact pipe, effluent reservoir, irrigation pumping station, and effluent irrigation fields. Most processes at the WWTP are automatically controlled by a programmable logic controller (PLC) within the WWTP control building.91 The treated wastewater is chlorinated and stored at the effluent storage reservoir. During the 1991 expansion, the Citys effluent storage reservoir was expanded to about 650 acre feet (i.e., 211 MG) at reservoir elevation 1432 feet. Treated effluent is stored in the reservoir until such time the water can be applied to the Citys 332-acre irrigation facilities. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB) wastewater discharge permit allows the City to irrigate all year long, so long as effluent irrigation practices do not occur during, or within 24 hours of, precipitation on the irrigation area. The Citys irrigated pasture land is leased to local farmers for grazing livestock.92 C. Wastewater Collection System
According to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region,93 The collection system consists of approximately 250,000 linear feet of sewer main and lateral and collects wastewater from approximately 5,150 residents. D. Wastewater Treatment Master Plan
In 2008, there were 2,046 single-family residential unit equivalents (RUEs) served by the City of Lakeport sewer system. The projected 20-year RUE value for the Citys existing City Limits is 2,593. Based on a projected growth rate of 1.1 percent per year used in the 2008 City of Lakeport Master Sewer Plan, it is estimated that some of the Citys WWTP processes will reach their capacity within the next twenty years (i.e., chlorine contact chamber and the aeration basins). The values shown below indicate projected wastewater flows based on the Citys 2008 Master Sewer Plan:94 CITY OF LAKEPORT PROJECTED WASTEWATER FLOWS Flow 2008 Average Dry Weather Flow, MGD 0.38 Potential Peak Wet Weather Flow, MGD 2.80
successful in reducing PWWF.
2009 0.48 3.40*
*Assumes a 1.1 percent per year growth rate and infiltration and inflow (I&I) reduction projects will be
91
City of Lakeport, 2009 Recycle Feasibility Study Report, February 2010, prepared by Pace Engineering, Redding, California, Page 8. 92 City of Lakeport, 2009 Recycle Feasibility Study Report, February 2010, prepared by Pace Engineering, Redding, California, Page 2. 93 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region, Order No. R-5-2007-0010, Cease and Desist Order for City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District Wastewater Treatment Facility, Lake County, March 15, 2007. 94 City of Lakeport, 2009 Recycle Feasibility Study Report, February 2010, prepared by Pace Engineering, Redding, California, Page 8.
39
3.6.3
Wastewater Treatment Regulations
Waste Discharge Requirement (WDRs) Order No. 98-207, adopted by the Regional Water Board on October 23, 1998, prescribes requirements for the wastewater system owned and operated by the City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District (CLMSD). Revised Monitoring and Reporting Program No. 98-207 was issued on April 22, 2004.95 The Wastewater Treatment Plant was the subject of Cease and Desist Order No. R-5-20070010 issued on March 15, 2007. The Cease and Desist Order lists numerous spills from 1998 to 2006. The City completed the work required including a 90-acre disposal field expansion for $2.6 million.96 The City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District intends to expand the sewer system over the next 10 years to accommodate potential commercial and residential growth. It also desires to implement programs and activities that will become an example for other similarly sized communities of efficacious wastewater management. To that end, an engineering firm was engaged to develop a Master Sewer Plan which evaluated the Districts sewer capacity and made recommendations to effectively accommodate future growth in the short and long term, while mitigating impact to the environment. The Master Sewer Plan was adopted in July, 2008.97 3.6.4 Inflow and Infiltration
Inflow and infiltration (I&I) is a significant problem for the collection system. In an effort to try and reduce this I&I load on the system, the City has performed several rehabilitation projects throughout its history: 1. A sewer system evaluation survey of the Lakeport sewer system was performed in 1976. From this study, several areas of the Citys collection system were identified for rehabilitation work. 2. In 1979 the City performed an extensive rehabilitation program made up of sewer reconstruction, sewer video inspection, and grout sealing of sewer joints. 3. From 1991 to 1992 the City performed an I&I analysis of the entire sewer system. This analysis involved smoke testing of the collections system to determine sources of inflow, manhole inspections, and wet weather flow monitoring. From this comprehensive analysis, several areas within the collection system were identified as having moderate to severe I&I. 4. Using the 1991 and 1992 I&I study discussed above, the City performed a major collection system rehabilitation project in 1993 and 1994. This project involved video inspecting, testing, and grout sealing approximately 38,000 feet of main line sewer, and replacing 8,200 feet of 6-inch to 10-inch main sewer as well as 3,100 feet of 3-and 4-inch lateral sewers within the right-of-way areas. In addition, the City also expanded the C Street pump station with upgrades to the pumps, control equipment, and the control building.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region, Order No. R-5-2007-0010, Cease and Desist Order for City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District Wastewater Treatment Facility, Lake County, March 15, 2007. 96 City of Lakeport, Draft South Main Street and Soda Bay Road Annexation Area Plan for Services, April 2011, Page 17. 97 City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District, Sewer System Management Plan, 2010, Page 4.
95
40
5. Implemented in 2003, the City maintains an ongoing I&I reduction program and staff dedicated to reducing or eliminating I&I within the collection system. The Citys I&I efforts have included the following: a. Aerial mapping of the city including GIS mapping of the collection system. b. Inventory of all sewer utilities (i.e., manholes, sewer sizes, etc). c. GIS utility atlas provided to field crews for constant update. d. Completion of City Sewer Spillage Geodatabase. e. Purchase of flow meters for sewage lift stations, 2004. f. Installation of 44 sewer manhole covers, 2005. g. Routine internal close circuit television (CCTV) inspection of all gravity sewer main lines and some laterals using City owned CCTV equipment. h. Systematic smoke testing to identify open clean outs, leaking manholes, and damaged sewers in areas prone to high I&I and flooding. i. Identification, documentation, repairs, and enforcement of damaged and illicit connections to the gravity sewer system. j. Scheduling of maintenance, restoration, and replacement of damaged sewers and laterals. k. Physical assessment, photographing, and cataloging of all sewer manholes within the Lakeport collection system. l. Rehabilitation of over 50 deteriorating manholes and lids from 2004 to 2006. m. Purchase and installation of leak-proof manhole covers on a significant number of manholes throughout the system. 98 The City requires all identified sources of inflow and infiltration (I&I) be corrected upon discovery. The City actively investigates such sources and continuously works to identify and track new sources. CLMSDs I&I Program is proactive in detection; however, significant fiscal limitations prevent correction of all known I&I locations. The 2008 Master Sewer Plan comprehensively identified all known I&I sources and the rehabilitation measures needed to correct the issues surrounding them. That information and newly discovered I&I sources are tracked and stored in the Citys GIS mapping program.99 3.6.5 Wastewater Treatment Finances
The City of Lakeport Wastewater Treatment system is financed with Enterprise Funds as follows:100 Enterprise Fund 601 City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District Fund: Chapter 13.20 of the Lakeport Municipal Code provides the authority for the City to operate the sewer system. Revenues (fees and charges) are collected to pay for availability of collection, transportation, treatment, and disposal systems. In addition, grazing lease payments, LACOSAN payments for flows, tax revenues, FEMA storm damage reimbursement, OES storm damage reimbursement, and insurance rebates have been credited to this fund.
City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District, Sewer System Management Plan, 2010, Pages 23-25. City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District, Sewer System Management Plan, 2010, Page 16. 100 City of Lakeport, Budget Fiscal Year 2009/2010, Page 9.
99
98
41
Enterprise Fund 602 City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District Expansion Fund: See Lakeport Municipal Code Section 13.20.030. New construction is assessed connection fees to provide for major repair, improvement, and expansion of sewer collection, transmission, treatment and disposal facilities. Consultant completing water/sewer rate study recommended that depreciation account be established for annual transfer from M&O fund. The budget for the Sewer Maintenance and Operations Fund is shown below: City of Lakeport Budget Sewer Maintenance & Operations Fund 601 Description 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 Actual Actual Actual Budget101 Budget102 Revenue $1,358,414 $3,900,384 $2,031,075 $1,751,186 $1,701,564 Expenditures Salaries/Benefits $677,567 $713,505 $812,769 $787,140 $671,410 Operating Expense 1,507,374 758,007 843,318 964,593 926,288 Capital Outlay 10,916 2,545,875 53,076 9,500 18,000 Total Expense $2,195,826 $4,017,387 $1,709,162 $1,761,233 $1,615,698 The majority of the revenue comes from sewer service charges. 3.7 3.7.1 City of Lakeport Facilities Public Works
The Street Division of Public Works provides for the maintenance and minor construction of all City streets, curbs and gutters, drainage systems and structures, and rights-of-way improvements. This includes asphalt overlays and repairs, street signs, pavement markings, culvert maintenance and replacement, and other street related projects. The Street Division also provides many additional public service functions, including providing traffic control services for parades and other special events, installing banners over Main Street, and assisting other City departments.103 The Public Works Superintendent is Doug Grider and the contact information is as follows: Phone: 707-263-0751 Email: dgrider@cityoflakeport.com The budget for the Public Works Department is as follows: City of Lakeport Budget Public Works Department 3020 Description 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 Actual Actual Actual Budget104 Revenue $ $1,310,564 $874,049 $908,101 Expenditures Salaries/Benefits $317,696 $383,499 $312,283 $314,831 Operating Expense 254,777 293,035 277,294 332,270
101 102 103 104 105
2010/2011 Budget105 $1,104,263 $336,588 242,280
City of Lakeport, Budget Fiscal Year 2009/2010, Pages 49-50. City of Lakeport, Budget Fiscal Year 2010/2011, Pages 52-53. City of Lakeport, http://www.cityoflakeport.com/departments/home.aspx?deptID=78, July 14, 2010. City of Lakeport, Budget Fiscal Year 2009/2010, Pages 24-25. City of Lakeport, Budget Fiscal Year 2010/2011, Pages 24-25.
42
Capital Outlay Total Expense
83,250 $655,723
634,030 $1,310,564
334,472 $874,049
261,000 $908,101
525,396 $1,104,263
The revenue for the Public Works Department comes from the General Fund. The funds for the capital outlay projects come from Measure I approved by the voters. A. Drainage
Drainage - Background Water pollution degrades surface waters, making them unsafe for drinking, fishing, swimming, and other activities. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits are required for all point-source pollution discharges of waste into Californias surface waters to prevent pollution and loss or impairment of beneficial uses of waters, to prevent damage to or loss of aquatic species and habitat, and to prevent human health problems and water-borne diseases. Point sources are discrete conveyances such as pipes or man-made ditches. Industrial, municipal, and other facilities must obtain a permit if their discharges go directly to surface waters. Individual homes that are connected to a municipal sewer system, use a septic system, or do not have a surface discharge do not need an NPDES permit. The NPDES permit program is mandated by the Federal Clean Water Act and administered by the State of California. Storm water discharges are runoff from land and impervious areas such as paved streets, parking lots and building rooftops during rainfall and snow melt-off. These discharges often contain pollutants in quantities that could adversely affect water quality. Discharges of pollutants to storm water conveyance systems are significant sources of pollution to surface waters. Federal Law designates these discharges as point-source discharges subject to an NPDES permit. There are two types of storm water permits as follows: Individual storm water permit and General storm water permit. An individual permit is an NPDES permit specifically tailored to a single facility. A general permit is an NPDES permit that covers several facilities that have the same type of discharge. The City of Lakeport jointly administers the Lake County Clean Water Program by participating in the Lake County Clean Water Program Advisory Council, as reported annually to the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Lakeport Drainage The General Plan describes the Citys drainage system as follows:106 Lakeport is traversed by several streams and drainage areas which flow into Clear Lake. The development that has occurred during the past ten years has accentuated existing drainage problems and has increased the potential for flooding. Continued construction of new buildings increases the area of impermeable surface and thus the amount of stormwater that flows through the Citys storm drain system.
106
City of Lakeport General Plan 2025, Land Use Element, August 2009, Page II-13.
43
Lakeport Flooding In addition to drainage problems Lakeport may also experience flooding problems as described in the General Plan: 107 Flooding has historically been one of Lakeports major safety concerns. Clear Lake and its tributary drainages have a long history of flooding. In the past twenty years, federal disasters due to flooding were declared six times in the City of Lakeport during 1983, 1986, 1995 (twice), 1997, and 1998. Flooding in Lakeport historically results from two distinct types of events as follows: Shoreline flooding due to high lake levels and wind velocity Stream bank flooding caused by high intensity cloudburst storms over one or more of the drainage areas
Conditions in the winter tend to be conducive to both types of flood conditions at the same time. Stream bank flooding affects most drainage within the city. Cloudburst storms lasting as long as three hours can occur in the watersheds of Lakeport practically anytime during the fall, winter, and spring and may occur as an extremely severe sequence in a general rainstorm. Cloudbursts are high-intensity storms that can produce floods characterized by high peak flows, short duration, and relatively small volume of runoff. In small drainage basins, such as those existing in the Planning Area, cloudbursts can produce peak flows substantially larger than those of general rainstorm runoff. B. Streets and Roads
The General Plan describes Lakeports streets as follows:108 Lakeports roadway network is defined and constrained by two barriers: Clear Lake on the east and State Highway 29 on the west. The majority of the city is laid out in a rectangular grid pattern which is interrupted by hilly terrain. In these hilly areas the street system becomes discontinuous and through traffic is difficult. Many of the Citys streets are narrow, not improved to current standards, and will require upgrading. In addition, further development of the street system between Bevins and Main Streets is prevented by large areas devoted to public facilities such as the City corporation yard and the Lake County Fairgrounds. Although construction of the State Highway 29 freeway has reduced congestion downtown, it is now a barrier inhibiting east-west circulation through the Planning Area. Access across State Highway 29 is only available at: Eleventh Street; Martin Street; Lakeport Boulevard; the South Main Street intersection with State Highway 29; and the Hill Road
107 108
City of Lakeport General Plan 2025, Safety Element, August 2009, Page X-4. City of Lakeport General Plan 2025, Transportation Element, August 2009, Page IV-5.
44
crossing. State Highway 29 permits vehicles to bypass the downtown area and carries the largest amount of traffic through Lakeport. When the State Highway 29 bypass was constructed in 1970, it carried between 2,000 and 4,000 vehicles per day significantly reducing the amount of through traffic on Main Street and other city streets. Lakeport has grown considerably resulting in an increase in traffic volumes on Main Street. Traffic volumes will continue to increase commensurate with population growth in Lakeport and the County. The Plan further describes pedestrian facilities as follows:109 Many residential areas in the City are built without sidewalks. The construction of sidewalks would significantly increase pedestrian safety, particularly for children going to and from school. Funds to construct sidewalks in these areas are available from Improvement Districts where property owners agree to pay for sidewalk construction and from the Citys General and Redevelopment Funds. Use of the Citys General Fund to build sidewalks is unlikely, unless community-wide benefit can be demonstrated. In older areas already developed without sidewalks, and in low density residential areas which typically have a swale adjacent to the road instead of a sidewalk, curb, and gutter, it may be preferable to build an asphalt pathway to separate pedestrians from vehicular traffic. 3.7.2 A. Parks Buildings and Grounds City Parks
The Parks and Building Maintenance Division provides for the operation and maintenance of Library and Westside Community Parks, special use areas, City Hall, and the Police Station. This Division provides administration and supervision of contract providers and parks and building maintenance staff for landscaping, grounds, and building maintenance, including electrical and plumbing repairs, vandalism repairs, some painting, custodial services, and litter abatement.110 EXISTING PARKS CITY OF LAKEPORT111 Size (acres) Current Use 5.0* Picnicking, boat ramp, parking lot 3.5 Picnicking, play lot, gazebo, boat ramp, dock, and swimming Athletic fields, playground (8 acres developed, the remainder will develop as funds become available).
Park Lakefront Park Library Park
Westside Community Park
55.0
Total
109 110 111
63.5
City of Lakeport General Plan 2025, Transportation Element, August 2009, Page IV-11. City of Lakeport, http://www.cityoflakeport.com/departments/home.aspx?deptID=79, July 14, 2010. City of Lakeport General Plan 2025, Open Space, Parks and Recreation Element, August 2009, Page VIII-2.
45
*Most of the 5 acres is used for parking
Open space and recreation facilities at Lakeports schools are also considered part of the park inventory due to the cooperative agreement between the City and school district. Not including the school districts park acreage, there are approximately 12 acres of City owned parkland per 1,000 residents. Only 16.5 acres of the City owned parkland had been developed as of 2004, giving Lakeport a ratio of 3.3 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 residents. This is below the adopted goal of 5 acres per 1,000 residents. In addition to parks within the City, Lakeport is fortunate to be surrounded by a generous amount of open space. Over 50 percent of all land in Lake County is publicly owned, and approximately two thirds of this area is available for public use. The majority of this land has limited recreational use, however, since it is inaccessible to the public.112 B. Boating and Fishing
The General Plan describes the additional recreational opportunities of boating and fishing as follows:113 Fishing season is open 365 days a year on Clear Lake and the lake is famous for its many fishing tournaments. The largest tournament activity involves bass fishing; there are numerous bass tournaments throughout the year with as many as 300 boats participating in any one tournament. Civic organizations such as the local Chamber of Commerce aggressively court fishing tournaments because of the significant revenue generated by them. The principal bass tournament locations are at City of Clearlake, Lakeport, and Konocti Harbor Resort and Konocti Vista Casino. There are also fishing derbies at a variety of locations for other fish such catfish, carp, crappie, and blue gill. In addition to the fishing events, there are other boating related events including the Nor-Cal Boat and Ski races, personal watercraft poker runs, and a seaplane fly-in. C. Budget
The budget for the Parks, Buildings and Grounds Department is shown below:
City of Lakeport Budget Parks, Buildings and Grounds Department 3030 Description 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 114 115 Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Revenue $301,476 $247,505 $200,246 $222,307 Expenditures Salaries/Benefits $193,059 $205,922 $169,246 $92,419 $144,506 Operating Expense 83,865 67,775 78,259 107,827 77,802 Capital Outlay 24,841 27,778 0 0 0 Total Expense $301,765 $301,476 $247,505 $200,246 $222,307
The Parks, Buildings and Grounds revenue comes from the General Fund.
112 113 114 115
City of Lakeport General Plan 2025, Open Space, Parks and Recreation Element, August 2009, Page VIII-1. City of Lakeport General Plan 2025, Open Space, Parks and Recreation Element, August 2009, Page VIII-3. City of Lakeport, Budget Fiscal Year 2009/2010, Page 26. City of Lakeport, Budget Fiscal Year 2010/2011, Page 26.
46
3.7.3
Westshore Pool
The Westshore Pool is maintained by the Parks, Buildings and Grounds Department but the budget is separate as shown below: City of Lakeport Budget Westshore Pool Department 1130 Description 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 Actual Actual Actual Budget116 Budget117 Revenue General Fund $134,400 $98,587 $47,972 $58,393 $79,379 Expenditures Salaries/Benefits $12,256 $31,136 $30,644 $27,773 $37,357 Operating Expense 8,359 21,438 17,328 30,520 39,922 Capital Outlay 337,503 46,013 0 100 2,100 Total Expense $358,118 $98,587 $47,972 $58,393 $79,379 This budget would be comparable to the City of Williams budget for the pool of $55,000 in 2009-10 and 2010-11.118 3.8 3.8.1 City of Lakeport Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Solid Waste Regulations
There are three regulatory bodies relevant to solid waste disposal: California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) Local Enforcement Agencies (LEA) Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) In 1989, the California legislature passed the California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939) in an effort to conserve resources and extend landfill capacity. The Act established an unprecedented framework for integrated waste management planning and waste disposal compliance. Based on a 1990 disposal baseline, AB 939 required cities and counties to reduce the amount of solid waste generated in their jurisdictions and disposed in landfills by twentyfive percent by the year 1995 and by fifty percent by the year 2000.119 AB 939 also required local governments to prepare comprehensive integrated waste management plans that detail how the waste diversion mandates will be met and to update elements of those plans every five years. AB 939 established the CIWMB to oversee integrated waste management planning and compliance; CIWMB serves as the permitting and enforcement agency. The Board is responsible for approving permits for waste facilities, approving local agencies diversion rates, and enforcing the planning requirements of the law through Local Enforcement Agencies (LEAs).
116
117 118
City of Lakeport, Budget Fiscal Year 2009/2010, Page 27. City of Lakeport, Budget Fiscal Year 2010/2011, Page 27. City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2010-2012. 119 A Senate bill passed in 1997 allowed for extensions through 2005 for jurisdictions that made a good faith effort to comply.
47
LEAs inspect and investigate solid waste collection, handling, storage and equipment. LEAs may also verify compliance with state and local minimum standards for the protection of the environment and public health. LEA reports are forwarded to CIWMB and the relevant operator upon completion. Any potential discharge to surface or groundwater is regulated by the RWQCB. The owner or operator of any facility that discharges, or proposes to discharge, waste that may affect groundwater quality (including solid waste disposal facilities) must first obtain a waste discharge requirement permit (WDR) from the appropriate RWQCB. A WDR order adopted by RWQCB for an individual facility defines measures to mitigate any potential contamination of the groundwater. In addition to these two bodies, AB 2948 (enacted in 1986) established procedures for regional hazardous waste planning. Under this regulation, counties were to develop hazardous waste plans and projections by 2000. 3.8.2 City of Lakeport Trash Collection
Curbside trash, recycling, and green waste pickup in Lakeport are provided by the Lakeport Disposal Company (www.LakeportDisposal.com). The City has entered into a franchise agreement with Lakeport Disposal to provide these universal services.120 In 2003, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 837 which made participation in the curbside pickup of garbage, recycling, and green waste mandatory within the Lakeport City limits. Residents are required to maintain the waste toters, place them out on collection day only, and to pull them in within 18 hours after they have been emptied. Toters are also required to be stored and screened from public view and not be visible from the sidewalk, streets, or roadways. Fees for waste collection are billed by the City as part of the monthly sewer and water utility bills. Residential waste collection fees are as follows: One 20-gallon toter: One 32-gallon toter: Two 32-gallon toters: $12.75 $19.12 $38.24
Recycling and green waste pick-up service is provided free of charge. According to Lakeport Ordinance No. 817, outside burning of all kinds is prohibited. The only exceptions are for barbequing and Fire District training exercises.
120
City of Lakeport, http://www.cityoflakeport.com/residents/waste.aspx, July 13, 2010.
48
The budget for the Trash Collection Department is shown below: City of Lakeport Budget Trash Collection Department 3034 Description 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 Actual Actual Actual Budget121 Revenue $374,113 $402,142 $422,490 $457,498 Trash Collection Expenditures Contractual Services $323,360 $341,721 $392,803 $398,991 Total Expense $323,360 $341,721 $392,803 $398,991
2010/2011 Budget122 $472,435
$414,921 $414,921
The revenue is from the fees collected by the City of Lakeport. It costs the City money to collect the fees and to negotiate and supervise the contract so the expense shown only includes Trash Contract Services and does not show city overhead for Management. 3.9 3.9.1 City of Lakeport Finances General Fund Expenditures
The General Fund Expenditures by Department were as follows for 2009-2010 and 2010-2011: City of Lakeport Budget General Fund Expenditures by Department Department Number 1010 1020 1030 1040 1050 1051 1052 1130 2010 2020 2040 3020 3030 3034 Total Department Name Total Expenditures 2009/2010123 $117,866 102,641 51,082 331,552 233,501 154,215 64,760 58,393 1,846,771 30,000 20,000 908,101 200,246 398,991 $4,518,119 Total Expenditures 2010/2011124 $112,027 125,919 49,030 342,618 161,344 136,096 59,376 79,379 1,782,579 30,000 20,403 1,104,263 222,307 414,921 $4,640,263
City Council City Manager/City Clerk City Attorney Finance Planning Building Inspection City Engineer Westshore Pool Police Animal Control Park Ranger Public Works Parks, Buildings, Grounds Trash Collection
121 122 123 124
City of Lakeport, Budget Fiscal Year 2009/2010, Page 28. City of Lakeport, Budget Fiscal Year 2010/2011, Page 28. City of Lakeport, Budget Fiscal Year 2009/2010, Page 13. City of Lakeport, Budget Fiscal Year 2010/2011, Page 13.
49
3.9.2
Annual Financial Report
The City contracts with an independent auditor to provide an annual financial report each year. This report is posted on the Citys website (www.cityoflakeport.com). Information from the June 30, 2009 report is discussed below. A. Pension Plan Obligations
The City contributes to the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), an agent multiple-employer public employee defined benefit pension plan. PERS provides retirement and disability benefits, annual cost-of-living adjustments, and death benefits to plan members and beneficiaries. PERS acts as a common investment and administrative agent for participating public entities with the State of California. Benefit provisions and all other requirements are established by State Statute and City Ordinance. Copies of PERS annual financial report may be obtained from their Executive Office, 400 P Street, Sacramento, California 95814.125 Non-public safety participants are required to contribute 8% of their annual covered salary, while public safety employees are required to contribute 9% of their annual covered salary. The City makes the contributions required of city employees on their behalf and for their account. The City is required to contribute at an actuariallydetermined rate; the current 2008-2009 rate was 16.455% for non-public safety employees (miscellaneous plan) and 28.049% for public safety employees (safety plan), of annual covered payroll. The contribution requirements of plan members and the City are established and may be amended by PERS.126 The Citys annual pension cost of $507,320 was equal to the Citys required and actual contributions. The required contribution was determined as part of the June 30, 2007, actuarial valuation using the entry age normal cost method. B. Post-Retirement Health Care Benefits
The City provides post-employment benefit options for medical healthcare to eligible retirees. The plan is offered to qualified employees based upon years of service. For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009, the City paid $311,540 under the plan.127 Employees hired after July 1, 2005 are not eligible for post-retirement health care benefits. C. Risk Management
The City is exposed to various risks of losses related to torts; theft of, damage to, and destruction of assets; errors and omissions; injuries to employees; and natural disasters. In 1978, the City joined together with other cities to form the Redwood Empire Municipal Insurance Fund (REMIF), a public City risk pool currently operating as a common risk management and insurance program for 16 member cities. The City pays an annual premium to REMIF for its workers compensation, general liability and property coverage.
125 126 127
City of Lakeport, Notes to Financial Statements, June 30, 2009, Page 25. City of Lakeport, Notes to Financial Statements, June 30, 2009, Page 25. City of Lakeport, Notes to Financial Statements, June 30, 2009, Page 26.
50
The coverage pays up to $10,000 for property losses, $10,000 for liability losses, and $5,000 for workers compensation losses. The City has excess insurance purchased by REMIF, except liability, which is pooled with the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (a self-funded risk sharing pool). The excess insurance limits are $10,000 to $295 million for property losses (except auto physical which is a maximum of $1,000,000); $10,000 to $15 million for all liability losses; and $5,000 to $300,000 for workers compensation losses. On June 30, 2009, the City determined that it need not accrue liability or revenues for purposes of funding the Citys future claim liabilities. REMIF issues a separate comprehensive annual financial report. Copies of that report may be obtained from REMIF at PO Box 885, Sonoma, California 95476.128 D. Commitments and Contingencies
The City receives funding from a number of federal, state and local grant programs, principally the Community Development Block Grants. These programs are subject to financial and compliance review by grantors. Accordingly, the Citys compliance with applicable grant requirements will be determined at some future date. Expenditures, if any, which may be disallowed by the granting agencies, cannot be determined at some future date. Expenditures, if any, which may be disallowed by the granting agencies, cannot be determined at this time. The City does not expect the undeterminable amounts of disallowed expenditures, if any, to materially affect the financial statements. Receipt of these federal, state and local grant revenues is not assured in the future.129 E. Assets and Liabilities June 30, 2009
The Assets and Liabilities for the City of Lakeport on June 30, 2009 are summarized as follows:130 City of Lakeport Assets June 30, 2009 Governmental Business-type Activities Activities Assets Cash/Investments Receivables Inventory Notes receivable Land for resale Capital assets, not depreciated Capital assets, net of depreciation Deferred charges Restricted cash with fiscal agent Total Assets $4,233,161 690,534 1,208,142 407,964 399,546 4,632,771 305,897 3,383,116 $15,261,131 $2,527,516 235,358 88,992 1,775,403 17,285,079 195,301 $22,107,649
Total
$6,760,677 925,892 88,992 1,208,142 407,964 2,174,949 21,917,850 501,198 3,383,116 $37,368,780
128
129
City of Lakeport, Notes to Financial Statements, June 30, 2009, Page 27. City of Lakeport, Notes to Financial Statements, June 30, 2009, Page 27. 130 City of Lakeport, Annual Financial Report, June 30, 2009, Page 3.
51
Liabilities Accounts payable Accrued liabilities Interest payable Deposits payable Deferred revenue Noncurrent liabilities: Due within one year Due within more than 1 year Total Liabilities Net Assets Invested in capital assets net of debt Unrestricted Total Net Assets
City of Lakeport Liabilities June 30, 2009 Governmental Business $113,959 $84,690 117,983 23,868 92,494 178,060 209,652 26,125 50,000 5,735,519 $6,136,080 (722,824) 9,847,875 $9,125,051 240,272 10,354,289 $11,090,831 8,661,222 2,355,596 $11,016,818
Total $198,649 141,851 270,554 209,652 26,125 290,272 16,089,808 $17,226,911 7,938,398 12,203,471 $20,141,869
Liabilities include interest on loans, and commitments to employees such as vacation and sick leave that has not been used.
52
CITY OF LAKEPORT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
The Municipal Service Review Findings are required by the State Law. The findings serve the purpose of helping LAFCO to understand the special district or city involved in an annexation, detachment or reorganization proposal. The determinations are not binding proposals for the special district or city. The determinations are subject to change because the jurisdiction involved is constantly changing, improving or growing. The State requires the MSR to be reviewed every five years as part of the SOI update process. Lake LAFCO is responsible for determining if an agency is reasonably capable of providing needed resources and basic infrastructure to serve areas within its boundaries and, later, within the Sphere of Influence. LAFCO will do the following: 1) Evaluate the present and long-term infrastructure demands and resources available to the District. Analyze whether resources and services are, or will be, available at needed levels. Determine whether orderly maintenance and expansion of such resources and services are planned to occur in-line with increasing demands.
2)
3)
The Final Municipal Service Review Guidelines prepared by the Governors Office of Planning and Research recommend issues relevant to the jurisdiction be addressed through written determinations called for in the Cortese-Knox Hertzberg Act. Determinations are provided for each of the five factors, based on the information provided in this Municipal Service Review. 4.1 Growth and Population Projections for the City of Lakeport Area
Purpose: To evaluate service needs based on existing and anticipated growth patterns and population projections. 4.1.1 City of Lakeport Area Population Projections
Land use in Lakeport is approximately 76% commercial/residential, 5% industrial, and 19% open space/governmental/agriculture. However, apart from enhancing the appeal of Lakeport as a vacation destination, a movement is underway to make the City the focal point of economic and community activity for the County and the region. The City is aggressively working to attract new retail, hotel, industrial, educational, recreational, and food service establishments to the area.131 City of Lakeport, Population Estimates & Projections (2000-2015)132
2005 5-Year Growth Annual Average 2010 5-Year Growth Annual Average 2015 5-Year Growth Annual Average 2020
131 132
City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District, Sewer System Management Plan, 2010, Page 4. City of Lakeport, Housing Element, November 2009, Page 3-2.
53
LAKE LAFCO MSR and SOI CITY OF LAKEPORT Hearing Draft October 2011 (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Lakeport Lake County2 (all)
5,077 62,837
2.9 7.4
0.6 1.5
5,104 67,530
2.9 7.7
0.58 1.54
5,252 72,721
2.9 7.1
0.58 1.4
5,404 77,912
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Department of Finance, E-1 City/County Population Estimates, 2008 1 Assumes the same annual growth percentage that was reported between 2000 and 2008 2 Population growth rates estimated by DOF
The Land Use Designations for the City of Lakeport are shown on a map at the end of this report. The Sphere of Influence proposed by the City of Lakeport is also shown at the end of this report. The City-proposed Sphere of Influence is fairly large, which indicates that the City expects to increase in size. One development which could increase the population of the City is identified as the Specific Plan Area (SPA) and described as follows: This designation covers the city-owned property and a few private properties south of the current SOI but within the City-proposed SOI. The area is proposed for single and multiple-family residential; including cooperative ownership properties to serve the vacation market; a golf course; and limited commercial, such as a clubhouse or restaurant. Based on the recommended density range of 1-2 units per acre, the Specific Plan Area could see between 600 and 1,200 residential units at build-out. Consistent zoning districts include, but are not limited to, R-1, R-2, R-3, R-5, UR, and C-1.133
133
54
Another concern regarding the ultimate decision on the Sphere of Influence is the relatively large amount of undeveloped land within the City of Lakeport. The General Plan describes this as follows: Lakeport has a high proportion of vacant and undeveloped land: twenty five percent of the land within City limits remains vacant and another twelve percent is underdeveloped*. Most of this land is located near or adjacent to City boundaries in the west, northwest, and northern areas of Lakeport. One of the goals of the General Plan is to encourage the development of vacant and underdeveloped properties through infill development, with additional single and multifamily residential housing on the west side of Lakeport. Many vacant and underdeveloped parcels do not have the full range of urban services. Obstacles that have prevented development of vacant and underdeveloped areas include the relatively high cost of providing urban services, the lack of adequate roads, rough terrain, and relatively high construction costs. Lakeport can encourage the development of vacant and underused parcels by using innovative subdivision standards, obtaining grant funds to provide public services and utilities, establishing of special assessment districts, reimbursement agreements, and amending the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and to increase the permitted density for specific areas. [Note: The Transportation Element contains implementation programs facilitating improvements to the road system serving vacant and undeveloped land.] 134
*Underdeveloped land is defined as having uses much below the maximum permitted by the General Plan. For example a ten-acre parcel with one dwelling located in an area designated as High Density Residential would be considered underdeveloped.
134
City of Lakeport General Plan 2025, Land Use Element, August 2009, Pages II-10-11.
55
4.1.2
MSR Determinations on Growth and Population Projections for the City of Lakeport Area The City of Lakeport needs to continue economic development and to balance job and population growth. The City has established requirements for future annexations and developments so that developers will pay their fair share of infrastructure development costs. The City of Lakeport has substantial undeveloped land already within the City Limits. This land could, in theory, be used to meet the growth and development needs of the City; however, the land may have physical problems and size limitations that prevent economical development. The City of Lakeport should work together with the County of Lake to update their land use and zoning designations concurrent with the Countys update of the Lakeport Area Plan. The City of Lakeport should provide input to the LACOSAN Sphere of Influence to reserve future growth areas for expansion of City utility district services in an Area of Concern. The Citys Area of Concern should be reflected in the revised Lakeport Area Plan.
1-1)
1-2)
1-3)
1-4)
1-5)
56
4.2
Capacity and Infrastructure
Purpose: To evaluate the infrastructure needs and deficiencies in terms of supply, capacity, condition of facilities and service quality. LAFCO is responsible for determining that an agency is reasonably capable of providing needed resources and basic infrastructure to serve areas within its boundaries and later in the Sphere of Influence. It is important that such determinations of infrastructure availability occur when revisions to the Sphere of Influence and annexations occur. In the case of this Municipal Service Review, it is prudent for Lake LAFCO to evaluate the present and long-term infrastructure demands and resource availability of the District. Further, LAFCO needs to see that resources and services are available at needed levels and orderly maintenance and expansion of such resources and services are made if there are increasing demands. 4.2.1 Infrastructure
The City of Lakeport infrastructure is described extensively in this report. The City of Lakeport is working to improve the infrastructure as necessary. 4.2.2 A. 2-1) MSR Determinations on Infrastructure for the City of Lakeport Police Protection The Police Department should continue to work with the Lake County Sheriff Department and the California Highway Patrol to coordinate efforts as much as possible in order to keep costs down. The Lakeport Police Department provides adequate police protection for the residents and visitors to Lakeport. The Lakeport Police Department continues to maintain adequate staffing levels and equipment to provide protection of persons and property in Lakeport. This is accomplished through annual reviews of the police budget, which take into account increases in demand for services resulting from additional mandates and a changing service area.135 The Draft South Main Street and Soda Bay Road Annexation Area Plan for Services states that Police indicate an ability to serve at a level of service equal to other parts of the community.136 Traffic-related law enforcement activity has increased substantially in recent years relative to other police activities. Traffic enforcement requires an increasing police presence on City streets.137 The City should develop a financing plan to accommodate growth by establishing development fees for capital improvements for police protection services.
2-2)
2-3)
2-4)
2-5)
2-6)
135 136
City of Lakeport General Plan 2025, Safety Element, August 2009, Page X-5. City of Lakeport, Draft South Main Street and Soda Bay Road Annexation Area Plan for Services, April 2011, Page 1City of Lakeport General Plan 2025, Safety Element, August 2009, Pages X-5-6.
3.
137
57
B. 2-7)
Fire Protection The City does not provide fire protection but is part of the Lakeport Fire Protection District.
C. 2-8) 2-9)
Water Service The Water Master Plan provides a guideline for water system improvements. There is sufficient source water available to serve the expected population growth provided that water conservation measures are maintained and improved.
2-10) The Citys 2008 Master Water Plan states that the Maximum Daily Demand (MDD) for water was 1.82 MGD at that time and the production capability was 2.7 MGD so that the City had adequate water. The Master Water Plan predicted that the Citys growth rate for the next twenty years would be 1.1 percent per year. Based on this predicted growth the Citys Maximum Daily Demand for water would be 2.3 MGD by 2028 which is still below the estimated firm production capability of the system. However, the Citys production capacity is reliant on the Green Ranch Wells that may be subject to reductions in capacity due to drought conditions and land ownership problems.138 2-11) The standard adopted by the City for fire flows is a minimum of 1,000 gallons per minute of free flow from two adjacent hydrants flowing simultaneously with 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure.
D.
Wastewater Collection and Treatment
2-12) The sewer system involves approximately 2,200 connections, serving over 5,200 residents, which accounts for eight percent of the entire county population. 2-13) The City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District operates and maintains eight sewer lift stations, a secondary treatment and disposal facility, and a collection system to each private property line. 2-14) The oldest main lines in service are estimated to have been installed 70 years ago. GIS mapping of the system has indicated several areas in need of rehabilitation; otherwise, the sewer performs efficiently and adequately.
City of Lakeport, 2009 Recycle Feasibility Study Report, February 2010, prepared by Pace Engineering, Redding CA Page 7.
138
58
2-15) The CLMSD collection and treatment system spans approximately 135,400 feet of collector sewer mains and 13,500 feet of interceptor sewers. One treatment plant services the entire system, including routed wastewater flows from LACOSAN service areas south of the current City limits and in unincorporated territory within the Citys Sphere of Influence. 2-16) The Wastewater Collection and Treatment Master Sewer Plan was adopted in July 2008. 2-17) Based on a projected growth rate of 1.1 percent per year used in the 2008 City of Lakeport Master Sewer Plan, it is estimated that some of the Citys WWTP processes will reach their capacity within the next twenty years (i.e., chlorine contact chamber and the aeration basins).
E.
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal
2-18) The City uses a private business to provide solid waste disposal services.
F.
Streets and Roads
2-19) The City should work closely with Caltrans to be sure that the State Routes within the City are properly maintained. 2-20) The City has acceptable Levels of Service (LOS) at this time. New development should be required to have traffic studies, as appropriate, to address possible declines in LOS. 2-21) Congestion on the Citys arterial and collector street systems, including the downtown area, is expected to become a problem.139 2-22) Growth in the North Lakeport area and development in unincorporated territory west and northwest of the City of Lakeport will impact City transportation services; impacts of future County growth on the City of Lakeport transportation facilities should be reflected in the revision of the Lakeport Area Plan currently under review by the County of Lake. 2-23) Actions are needed to improve existing traffic flow and mitigate the impacts of existing and future land development.140 2-24) Major improvements to the existing system are necessary, including road widening, additional crossings over/under the freeway, new roads, and additional traffic controls including signalization of intersections.141
139 140 141
City of Lakeport General Plan 2025, Transportation Element, August 2009, Page IV-9. City of Lakeport General Plan 2025, Transportation Element, August 2009, Page IV-9. City of Lakeport General Plan 2025, Transportation Element, August 2009, Page IV-9.
59
2-25) Funds will not be available to build all the roadway improvements required to offset or significantly improve future traffic congestion in Lakeport and its Sphere of Influence.142
G.
Drainage
2-26) The Citys Public Works Department provides for adequate drainage system maintenance.
H.
Park and Recreation Services
2-27) The Citys parkland standard is set at five acres of developed parkland per 1,000 residents. 2-28) The City will continue to provide park and recreation services for the larger Lakeport area (for people within the City, the County and visitors). 2-29) The City should coordinate park and recreation planning with the County through the Lakeport Area Plan Update being prepared by the County. 2-30) The City has an adequate number of parks as well as access to State and Federal recreational sites in the area.
142
City of Lakeport General Plan 2025, Transportation Element, August 2009, Page IV-9.
60
4.3
Financial Ability
Purpose: To evaluate factors that affect the financing of needed improvements and to identify practices or opportunities that may help eliminate unnecessary costs without decreasing service levels. LAFCO should consider the ability of the City to pay for improvements or services associated with annexed sites. This planning can begin at the Sphere of Influence stage by identifying what opportunities there are to identify infrastructure and maintenance needs associated with future annexation and development, and identifying limitations on financing such improvements, as well as the opportunities that exist to construct and maintain those improvements. LAFCO should consider the relative burden of new annexations to the community when it comes to its ability to provide public safety and administrative services, as well as capital maintenance and replacements required as a result of expanding District boundaries. Rate restructuring may be forced by shortfalls in funding, but the process may also reflect changing goals and views of economic justice or fairness within the community. LAFCO should evaluate the impact of SOI and Annexation decisions on existing community rates for public water service. Water rates and rate structures are not subject to regulation by other agencies. Utility providers may increase rates annually, and often do so. Generally, there is no voter approval requirement for rate increases, although notification of utility users is required. Water providers must maintain an enterprise fund for the respective utility separate from other funds, and may not use revenues to finance unrelated governmental activities. 4.3.1 Financial Considerations for City of Lakeport
The finances of the City of Lakeport have been explained above in this report.
4.3.2 3-1)
MSR Determinations on Financing for the City of Lakeport The City should review Development Impact Fees to ensure that all new development pays its fair share of the cost of development. The City should prepare a Capital Improvement Plan for future capital expenditures. The City should become familiar with Community Facilities Districts and MelloRoos Bonds as a means for new development to pay infrastructure and operational costs. The City provides financial information such as the budget and audits on the Citys web site.
3-2)
3-3)
3-4)
61
4.4
Opportunities for Shared Facilities
Purpose: To evaluate the opportunities for a jurisdiction to share facilities and resources to develop more efficient service delivery systems. In the case of annexing new lands into a district, LAFCO can evaluate whether services or facilities can be provided in a more efficient manner if the district can share them with another agency. In some cases, it may be possible to establish a cooperative approach to facility planning by encouraging agencies to work cooperatively in such efforts. 4.4.1 Facilities
The City of Lakeport facilities are described in this report. The City has several opportunities to coordinate services with other agencies as noted below.
4.4.2 4-1)
MSR Determinations on Shared Facilities for City of Lakeport The City shares facilities to the extent possible for police, fire protection, and emergency medical services. The City could investigate ways to reduce administrative costs through computerization and (or) shared services. Shared facilities for wastewater collection and treatment and water service are maintained by the City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District (CLMSD). CLMSD maintains a mutual aid agreement with Lake County Sanitation District (LACOSAN), whereby wastewater flows in the northern portion of the district can be directed to the County collection system. Likewise, wastewater flows from areas south of the CLMSD collection area are accepted by CLMSD. The transportation impacts of development occur throughout the region irrespective of jurisdictional boundaries. Development in the County near to the City will affect traffic near Lakeport, and similarly the growth of Lakeport will impact the Countys roadway system. For this reason, it is necessary to establish a regional traffic mitigation fee program involving Lake County and the City.143 The City will work with Lakeport Unified School District (LUSD) and Mendocino Community College District to develop joint use of neighborhood parks on school sites using an integrated and comprehensive design which embodies the principle of school-in-the-park. The City's neighborhood park/school sites should serve the entire community and provide a broad range of cultural, recreational and educational activities. 144
4-2)
4-3)
4-4)
4-5)
143 144
City of Lakeport General Plan 2025, Transportation Element, August 2009, Page IV-10. City of Lakeport General Plan 2025, Open Space, Parks and Recreation Element, August 2009, Page VIII-4.
62
4.5
Government Structure and Accountability
Purpose: 1) To consider the advantages and disadvantages of various government structures that could provide public services. 2) To evaluate the management capabilities of the organization. 3) To evaluate the accessibility and levels of public participation associated with the agencys decision-making and management processes. One of the most critical components of LAFCOs responsibilities is in setting logical service boundaries for communities based on their capacity to provide services to affected lands. Lake LAFCO may consider the agencys record of local accountability in its management of community affairs as a measure of the ability to provide adequate services to the Sphere of Influence and potential annexation areas. 4.5.1 Government Structure
The City of Lakeport has an elected City Council with a City Manager in charge of all departments. The various departments are described above in this report.
4.5.2
MSR Determinations on Local Accountability and Governance for the City of Lakeport The City has a web site to communicate with tax-payers, residents, and the public. The City should study the most efficient manner to provide administrative services. The City adopts budgets and rate changes at hearings where the public is notified and invited. Information is placed in the local newspaper, when required. The City has recently updated its General Plan.
5-1)
5-2)
5-3)
5-4)
63
CITY OF LAKEPORT SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
This Sphere of Influence update is prepared for the City of Lakeport and is based upon a Municipal Services Review for both sewer and water services that analyzed the capability to serve existing and future residents in the area. Information contained in this Sphere of Influence is only as of the date of adoption. 5.1 5.1.1 Sphere of Influence Requirements LAFCO's Responsibilities
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Government Code 56000 et seq.) is the statutory authority for the preparation of an MSR, and periodic updates of the Sphere of Influence of each local agency. A Sphere of Influence is a plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency, as determined by the affected Local Agency Formation Commission (Government Code 56076). Government Code 56425(f) requires that each Sphere of Influence be updated not less than every five years, and 56430 provides that a Municipal Service Review shall be conducted in advance of the Sphere of Influence update. 5.1.2 Sphere of Influence Determinations
In determining the Sphere of Influence for each local agency, LAFCO must consider and prepare a statement of determinations with respect to each of the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open space lands; The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area; The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services which the agency provides, or is authorized to provide; and The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the commission determines that they are relevant to the agency. Possible Approaches to the Sphere of Influence
5.1.3
LAFCO may recommend government reorganizations to particular agencies in the county, using the SOIs as the basis for those recommendations. Based on review of the guidelines of Lake LAFCO as well as other LAFCOs in the State, various conceptual approaches have been identified from which to choose in designating an SOI. These seven approaches are explained below: 1) Coterminous Sphere: A Coterminous sphere means that the sphere for a city or special district that is the same as its existing boundaries. Annexable Sphere: A sphere larger than the agencys boundaries identifies areas the agency is expected to annex. The annexable area is outside its boundaries and inside the sphere. This is the recommendation for Lakeport.
2)
64
3)
Detachable Sphere: A sphere that is smaller than the agencys boundaries identifies areas the agency is expected to detach. The detachable area is the area within the agency bounds but not within its sphere. Zero Sphere: A zero sphere indicates the affected agencys public service functions should be reassigned to another agency and the agency should be dissolved or combined with one or more other agencies. Consolidated Sphere: A consolidated sphere includes two or more local agencies and indicates the agencies should be consolidated into one agency. Limited Service Sphere: A limited service sphere is the territory included within the SOI of a multi-service provider agency that is also within the boundary of a limited purpose district which provides the same service (e.g., fire protection), but not all needed services. Territory designated as a limited service SOI may be considered for annexation to the limited purpose agency without detachment from the multi-service provider. This type of SOI is generally adopted when the following conditions exist: a) The limited service provider is providing adequate, cost effective and efficient services b) The multi-service agency is the most logical provider of the other services c) There is no feasible or logical SOI alternative d) Inclusion of the territory is in the best interests of local government organization and structure in the area
4)
5)
6)
7)
Sphere Planning Area: LAFCO may choose to designate a sphere planning area to signal that it anticipates expanding an agencys SOI in the future to include territory not yet within its official SOI.
Government Code 56001 specifically recognizes that in rural areas it may be appropriate to establish limited purpose agencies to serve an area rather than a single service provider, if multiple limited purpose agencies are better able to provide efficient services to an area rather than one service district. Moreover, Government Code Section 56425(i), governing sphere determinations, also authorizes a sphere for less than all of the services provided by a district by requiring a district affected by a sphere action to establish the nature, location, and extent of any functions of classes of services provided by existing districts, recognizing that more than one district may serve an area and that a given district may provide less than its full range of services in an area. 5.1.4 SOI Update Process
LAFCO is required to establish SOIs for all local agencies and enact policies to promote the logical and orderly development of areas within the SOIs. Furthermore, LAFCO must update those SOIs every five years. In updating the SOI, LAFCO is required to conduct a municipal service review (MSR) and adopt related determinations.
65
This report identifies preliminary SOI policy alternatives and recommends SOI options for the City of Lakeport. Development of actual SOI updates will involve additional steps, including opportunity for public input at a LAFCO public hearing, and consideration and changes made by Commissioners. LAFCO must notify affected agencies 21 days before holding a public hearing to consider the SOI and may not update the SOI until after that hearing. The LAFCO Executive Officer must issue a report including recommendations on the SOI amendments and updates under consideration at least five days before the public hearing. 5.1.5 SOI Amendments and CEQA
LAFCO has the discretion to limit SOI updates to those that it may process without unnecessarily delaying the SOI update process or without requiring its funding agencies to bear the costs of environmental studies associated with SOI expansions. Any local agency or individual may file a request for an SOI amendment. The request must state the nature of and reasons for the proposed amendment, and provide a map depicting the proposal. LAFCO may require the requester to pay a fee to cover LAFCO costs, including the costs of appropriate environmental review under CEQA. LAFCO may elect to serve as lead agency for such a review, may designate the proposing agency as lead agency, or both the local agency and LAFCO may serve as co-lead agencies for purposes of an SOI amendment. Local agencies are encouraged to consult with LAFCO staff early in the process regarding the most appropriate approach for the particular SOI amendment under consideration. Certain types of SOI amendments are likely exempt from CEQA review. Examples are SOI expansions that include territory already within the bounds or service area of an agency, SOI reductions, and zero SOIs. SOI expansions for limited purpose agencies that provide services (e.g., fire protection, flood protection, cemetery, and resource conservation) needed by both rural and urban areas are typically not considered growthinducing and are likely exempt from CEQA. Similarly, SOI expansions for districts serving rural areas (e.g., irrigation water) are typically not considered growth-inducing. Remy et al. write: In City of Agoura Hills v. Local Agency Formation Commission (2d Dist.1988) 198 Cal.App.3d480, 493-496 [243 Cal.Rptr.740] (City of Agoura Hills), the court held that a LAFCOs decision to approve a citys sphere of influence that in most respects was coterminous with the citys existing municipal boundaries was not a project because such action did not entail any potential effects on the physical environment.145
145
Remy, Michael H., Tina A. Thomas, James G. Moose, Whitman F. Manley, Guide to CEQA, Solano Press Books, Point Arena, CA, February 2007, page 111.
66
5.2
Present and Planned Land Uses in the City of Lakeport Area, Including Agricultural and Open Space Lands General Plan
5.2.1
The City of Lakeport General Plan includes an Urban Boundary Element. The Plan states the following: 146 The purpose of the Urban Boundary Element is to define the limits for extending City services and infrastructure in order to accommodate new development anticipated within the 20-year time frame of this General Plan. The Urban Boundary Element is also intended to provide guidance related to future annexation of land from the Citys Sphere of Influence. The Urban Boundary Element is not a state-mandated element; however, it is an important element because it limits leap-frog development and provides for an orderly transition from rural to urban land uses. The element recognizes the communitys dedication to orderly and managed growth of the citys boundaries and the desire to maintain the rural character of many of the areas and neighborhoods within the Lakeport Sphere of Influence. Although the General Plan includes a large City-proposed SOI, the Urban Boundary Element shows that the City could, in theory, meet the needs for estimated population growth with land that is within the City limits. Estimated Demand for Land 2005 - 2025 The number of residential, commercial and industrial acres needed in the City of Lakeport through 2025 is based on population projections through 2025 and an analysis of vacant and under-utilized lands currently within the City limits. By 2010, the population of Lakeport is estimated to be approximately 5,521 with 34 acres of residential land needed, 13 acres of commercial land needed, and 10 acres of industrial land needed. By 2025, the population of Lakeport is estimated to be approximately 6,859, with a total of 156 acres of residential land needed, 22 acres of commercial land needed and 45 acres of industrial land needed. Most of the projected land needed can be found in existing vacant infill areas within the City.147 Although the City has vacant and undeveloped land, a detailed study may show that it is not developable for various reasons. The City does have land that can be developed as a result of recent annexations.
146 147
City of Lakeport General Plan 2025, Urban Boundary Element, August 2009, Page III-3. City of Lakeport General Plan 2025, Urban Boundary Element, August 2009, Page III-3.
67
5.2.2
Draft South Main Street and Soda Bay Road Annexation Area Plan for Services
In addition to the General Plan, the City of Lakeport has prepared the Draft South Main Street and Soda Bay Road Annexation Area Plan for Services to meet the Lake Local Agency Formation Commission requirement that a Plan for Services be prepared for each annexation. The annexation area is located south of Lakeport along the South Main street corridor to the east of State Highway 29.148
5.2.3 1-1]
SOI Determinations for Present and Planned Land Use The proposed SOI shown in the General Plan could become the SOI for the City if it were broken down into time frames such as the 0 to 5 year SOI, the 6 to 11 year SOI and the 12-20 year SOI. It is usually preferable and better for the environment to have development take place within a city where sewer and water service can be provided as well as other services. The proposed SOI shown in the General Plan also includes land in the previous SOI to be excluded so the net amount of land within the SOI would not be that different from the existing SOI for the City of Lakeport. The City of Lakeport would be the lead agency in the preparation of all environmental documents relating to annexations. The General Plan provides for preservation and enhancement of existing neighborhoods. It also provides for development of new residential areas through the use of Specific Plans that reflect the best qualities of Lakeports existing neighborhoods, with a mix of housing types and sizes, integrated with community facilities including parks, schools, child care facilities and other institutional uses. The General Plan contains policies to promote and facilitate economic development. The General Plan provides for development of industrial and commercial uses that will provide a jobs/housing balance significant to the community and the region. Adequate commercial land is designated to promote development of commercial uses to meet present and future needs of Lakeport residents and visitors. The General Plan contains policies that will further the revitalization of downtown as economically viable and physically attractive. The General Plan also designates land for, and seeks to expand, the City's industrial base to provide for greater economic development and employment opportunities for Lakeport residents.
1-2]
1-3]
1-4]
1-5]
1-6]
148
City of Lakeport, Draft South Main Street and Soda Bay Road Annexation Area Plan for Services, April 2011, Page 1-
1.
68
5.3 5.3.1
Municipal Services Present and Probable Need Municipal Services Background
LAFCO is responsible for determining if an agency is reasonably capable of providing needed infrastructure and services to serve areas within its Sphere of Influence. LAFCO is required to evaluate present and long-term infrastructure demands and resource availability, and to evaluate whether the resources and services are available at needed service levels and that orderly maintenance and expansion of such resources and services are made in line with anticipated future demands. 5.3.2 SOI DeterminationsFacilities and Services Present and Probable Need
Police Protection 2-1] The City will continue to need police protection and the police department can be increased to serve additional area as needed. Fire Protection 2-2] The fire protection is provided by the Lakeport Fire Protection District so any land within the SOI would still remain in the Lakeport Fire Protection District. Water Service 2-3] Water service can be provided to areas within the sphere of influence but water supply is variable from year to year. Water service will increasingly depend on water conservation. Water for landscaping may be on a separate meter and use of recycled water for landscape purposes may increase. Wastewater Collection and Treatment 2-4] It would be beneficial for areas outside of the City Limits that are served by CLMSD to be annexed to the City of Lakeport so they would be subject to City regulations. 2-5] The CLSMD has an agreement with LACOSAN to serve part of the area within the City and to provide sewage removal in some areas adjacent to the City that are not serviced by LACOSAN.
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal 2-6] Solid waste collection and disposal service could be expanded to serve the area within the proposed SOI. Streets and Roads 2-7] Street services can be expanded to serve the area within the proposed SOI. Drainage 2-8] Drainage will be developed as the areas within the SOI are developed. Park and Recreation Services 2-9] Park and recreation services can be provided to an expanded area. In addition, there are other public and private recreation opportunities in the area. 69
5.4 5.4.1
Public Facilities Present and Future Capacity Capacity Background
The capacity and background of the Lakeport public facilities are described in the MSR.
5.4.2 3-1]
SOI Determinations--Public Facilities Present and Future Capacity Implementation of the General Plan will result in the expansion and improvement of public facilities and services, including police, fire, water, wastewater collection and treatment, streets, drainage, waste collection and disposal and parks. The General Plan calls for increased cooperation and coordination among governmental entities and promotes joint facility planning to achieve cost efficiencies and environmental justice. The City is in the process of upgrading many of its public facilities including roads, wastewater treatment and collection, and the water delivery system. After these upgrades are completed, the facilities should be adequate, but will need continued maintenance to be able to serve the existing and future residents of the City. The Master Service Plans provide the blueprint for upgrading many of these facilities. Funding is set aside each year during the budget process to further these projects. State and Federal grants, developer's fees and property and sales taxes are used to fund these projects. The source of funding for street improvements is the gas tax and developer infrastructure and development fees. Taking into consideration the City's revenue and operating constraints, and the fact that upgrades and improvements are ongoing, the condition of the public facilities is defensible and adequate. Additional infrastructure and resources to accommodate future development will include expanded drainage and wastewater facilities, increased personnel, equipment and facilities for fire and police protection, and increased road capacity.
3-2]
3-3]
3-4]
3-5]
70
5.5 5.5.1
Social or Economic Communities of Interest Community Background
The City of Lakeport Community Background is described in the MSR. The City is the County Seat for Lake County and has a substantial share of the jobs and economic activity in Lake County.
5.5.2 4-1]
SOI Determinations Social or Economic Communities of Interest The City of Lakeport is clearly both a social and economic community and new development within the area should occur within the City limits and be served by City services. Areas of concern for future utility and public service expansion of City services should be reflected in the next update of the Countys Lakeport Area Plan by mutual agreement between the City and the County of Lake.
4-1]
71
APPENDIX A LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUES

1 Municipal Financial Constraints
Municipal service providers are constrained in their capacity to finance services by the inability to increase property taxes, requirements for voter approval for new or increased taxes, and requirements of voter approval for parcel taxes and assessments used to finance services. Municipalities must obtain majority voter approval to increase or impose new general taxes and two-thirds voter approval for special taxes. Limitations on property tax rates and increases in taxable property values are financing constraints. Property tax revenues are subject to a formulaic allocation and are vulnerable to State budget needs. Agencies formed since the adoption of Proposition 13 in 1978 often lack adequate financing. 1.1 California Local Government Finance Background
The financial ability of the cities to provide services is affected by financial constraints. City service providers rely on a variety of revenue sources to fund city operating costs as follows: Property Taxes Benefit Assessments Special Taxes Proposition 172 Funds Other contributions from city general funds. As a funding source, property taxes are constrained by statewide initiatives that have been passed by voters over the years and special legislation. Seven of these measures are explained below: A. Proposition 13 Proposition 13 (which California voters approved in 1978) has the following three impacts: It limits the ad valorem property tax rate. It limits growth of the assessed value of property. It requires voter approval of certain local taxes. Generally, this measure fixes the ad valorem tax at one percent of the value at most recent sale; except for taxes to repay certain voter approved bonded indebtedness. In response to the adoption of Proposition 13, the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 8 (AB 8) in 1979 to establish property tax allocation formulas. B. AB 8 AB 8 allocates property tax revenue to the local agencies within each tax rate area based on the proportion each agency received during the three fiscal years preceding adoption of Proposition 13. This allocation formula benefits local agencies which had relatively high tax rates at the time Proposition 13 was enacted (1978). C. Proposition 98 Proposition 98, which California voters approved in 1988, requires the State to maintain a minimum level of school funding. In 1992 and 1993, the Legislature began shifting billions of local property taxes to schools in response to State budget deficits. Local property taxes were diverted from local governments into the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) and transferred to school districts and community college districts to reduce the amount paid by the State general fund. Local agencies throughout the State lost significant property tax revenue due to this shift. Proposition 172 was enacted to help offset property tax revenue losses of cities and counties that were shifted to the ERAF for schools in 1992.
72
D. Proposition 172 Proposition 172, enacted in 1993, provides the revenue of a half-cent sales tax to counties and cities for public safety purposes, including police, fire, district attorneys, corrections and lifeguards. Proposition 172 also requires cities and counties to continue providing public safety funding at or above the amount provided in FY 92-93. E. Proposition 218 Proposition 218, which California voters approved in 1996, requires voter- or property ownerapproval of increased local taxes, assessments, and property-related fees. A two-thirds affirmative vote is required to impose a Special Tax, for example, a tax for a specific purpose such as a fire district special tax. However, majority voter approval is required for imposing or increasing general taxes such as business license or utility taxes, which can be used for any governmental purpose. These requirements do not apply to user fees, development impact fees and Mello-Roos districts. F. Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 allows any county, city, special district, school district or joint powers authority to establish a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (a CFD) which allows for financing of public improvements and services. The services and improvements that Mello-Roos CFDs can finance include streets, sewer systems and other basic infrastructure, police protection, fire protection, ambulance services, schools, parks, libraries, museums and other cultural facilities. By law, the CFD is also entitled to recover expenses needed to form the CFD and administer the annual special taxes and bonded debt. A CFD is created by a sponsoring local government agency. The proposed district will include all properties that will benefit from the improvements to be constructed or the services to be provided. A CFD cannot be formed without a two-thirds majority vote of residents living within the proposed boundaries. Or, if there are fewer than 12 residents, the vote is instead conducted of current landowners. In many cases, that may be a single owner or developer. Once approved, a Special Tax Lien is placed against each property in the CFD. Property owners then pay a Special Tax each year. If the project cost is high, municipal bonds will be sold by the CFD to provide the large amount of money initially needed to build the improvements or fund the services. The Special Tax cannot be directly based on the value of the property. Special Taxes instead are based on mathematical formulas that take into account property characteristics such as use of the property, square footage of the structure and lot size. The formula is defined at the time of formation, and will include a maximum special tax amount and a percentage maximum annual increase. If bonds were issued by the CFD, special taxes will be charged annually until the bonds are paid off in full. Often, after bonds are paid off, a CFD will continue to charge a reduced fee to maintain the improvements. G. Development Impact Fees A county, cities, special districts, school districts, and private utilities may impose development impact fees on new construction for purposes of defraying the cost of putting in place public infrastructure and services to support new development.
73
To impose development impact fees, a jurisdiction must justify the fees as an offset to the impact of future development on facilities. This usually requires a special financial study. The fees must be committed within five years to the projects for which they were collected, and the district, city or county must keep separate funds for each development impact fee. 1.2 Financing Opportunities that Require Voter Approval
Financing opportunities that require voter approval include the following: 1) 2) Special taxes such as parcel taxes
Increases in general taxes such as the following: Utility taxes Sales and use taxes Business license taxes Transient occupancy taxes Communities may elect to form business improvement districts to finance supplemental services, or Mello-Roos districts to finance development-related infrastructure extension. Agencies may finance facilities with voter-approved (general obligation) bonded indebtedness. 1.3 Financing Opportunities that Do Not Require Voter Approval
Financing opportunities that do not require voter approval include imposition of or increases in fees to more fully recover the costs of providing services, including user fees and Development Impact Fees to recover the actual cost of services provided and infrastructure. Development Impact Fees and user fees must be based on reasonable costs, and may be imposed and increased without voter approval. Development Impact Fees may not be used to subsidize operating costs. Agencies may also finance many types of facility improvements through bond instruments that do not require voter approval. Water rates and rate structures are not subject to regulation by other agencies. Utility providers may increase rates annually, and often do so. Generally, there is no voter approval requirement for rate increases, although notification of utility users is required. Water providers must maintain an enterprise fund for the respective utility separate from other funds, and may not use revenues to finance unrelated governmental activities. 2 Public Management Standards
While public sector management standards do vary depending on the size and scope of an organization, there are minimum standards. Well-managed organizations do the following eight activities: 1) Evaluate employees annually. 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Prepare a budget before the beginning of the fiscal year. Conduct periodic financial audits to safeguard the public trust. Maintain current financial records. Periodically evaluate rates and fees. Plan and budget for capital replacement needs.
74
7) 8)
Conduct advance planning for future growth. Make best efforts to meet regulatory requirements.
Most of the professionally managed and staffed agencies implement many of these best management practices. LAFCO encourages all local agencies to conduct timely financial record-keeping for each city function and make financial information available to the public. 3 Public Participation in Government
The Brown Act (California Government Code Section 54950 et seq.) is intended to insure that public boards shall take their actions openly and that deliberations shall be conducted openly. The Brown Act establishes requirements for the following: Open meetings Agendas that describe the business to be conducted at the meeting Notice for meetings Meaningful opportunity for the public to comment Few exceptions for meeting in closed sessions and reports of items discussed in closed sessions. According to California Government Section 54959 Each member of a legislative body who attends a meeting of that legislative body where action is taken in violation of any provision of this chapter, and where the member intends to deprive the public of information to which the member knows or has reason to know the public is entitled under this chapter, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Section 54960 states the following: (a) The district attorney or any interested person may commence an action by mandamus, injunction or declaratory relief for the purpose of stopping or preventing violations or threatened violations of this chapter by members of the legislative body of a local agency or to determine the applicability of this chapter to actions or threatened future action of the legislative body,...
75
APPENDIX B CITY OF LAKEPORT WATER AND SEWER RATES
149
Please be advised that these are base rates. For usage above the base, customers will be charged according to First and/or Second Tier rates. Residential Water 3/4 Sewer - North Sewer - South Duplex, Triplex, or Mobile Home Water 3/4" Sewer - North Sewer - South Apartments Water 3/4" Sewer - North Sewer - South $10.02 25.41 33.08 6cf $12.51 33.87 42.93 8cf $16.69 33.87 42.93 10cf
Motel, Recreational Vehicle, or Bed & Breakfast Water 3/4" Sewer - North Sewer - South Outside City Limits (OCL) Water 3/4" Water 1" Commercial For commercial units, the base prices are the following: Water 3/4" 1 1.5 2 3 4 6 First tier Second tier Sewer - North Sewer - South *Allotment with base fee 8cf $16.69 33.35 69.48 100.11 200.20 333.68 642.27 $1.15 2.85 $33.87 42.93 10cf 20cf 40cf 60cf 120cf 200cf 385cf 100cf 100cf *Over $3.41 *Over 4.92 per cf $26.72 53.38 10cf 20cf $ 8.35 16.94 21.47 5cf
149
76
ABBREVIATIONS
AB Ac-Ft ADWF CALEA CEQA CIWMB CFD City CKH CLMSD CSA CRWQCB DHS DWR EDU EMD EMS EMT EPA ERAF FEMA FY gpd gpm GPS I&I LACOSAN Assembly Bill Acre Feet (of water) average dry weather flow Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies California Environmental Quality Act California Integrated Waste Management Board Community Facilities District City of Lakeport Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 City of Lakeport Municipal Services District County Service Area California Regional Water Quality Control Board Department of Health Services (California) Department of Water Resources (California) equivalent dwelling unit Emergency Medical Dispatch Emergency Medical Service Emergency Medical Technician Environmental Protection Agency (US) Educational revenue Augmentation Fund Federal Emergency Management Agency (US) Fiscal Year gallons per day gallons per minute Global Positioning System inflow and infiltration (to sewer lines) Lake County Sanitation District
77
LAFCO LEA LFPD LPD LUSD M&O MDD MGD MSR ND NFPA OES OPR PERS PLC ppm psi REMIF RUE RWQCB SB SCADA SDWA SOI SPA SWAT TOT
Local Agency Formation Commission Local Enforcement Agencies (Solid Waste Collection and Disposal) Lakeport Fire Protection District Lakeport Police Department Lakeport Unified School District Maintenance and Operations Maximum Day Demand million gallons per day Municipal Service Review (LAFCO) Not detectable at testing limit (water quality) National Fire Protection Association Office of Emergency Services (California) Office of Planning and Research (California) Public Employee Retirement System (California) programmable logic controller parts per million or milligrams per liter (mg/L) pounds per square inch Redwood Empire Municipal Insurance Fund residential unit equivalent Regional Water Quality Control Board Senate Bill Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition Safe Drinking Water Act Sphere of Influence (LAFCO) Specific Plan Area Special Weapons and Tactics Transient Occupancy Tax
78
WD WTP WWTP
Water District Water Treatment Plan Wastewater Treatment Plant
79
DEFINITIONS
Agriculture: Use of land for the production of food and fiber, including the growing of crops and/or the grazing of animals on natural prime or improved pasture land. Aquifer: An underground, water-bearing layer of earth, porous rock, sand, or gravel, through which water can seep or be held in natural storage. Aquifers generally hold sufficient water to be used as a water supply. Bond: An interest-bearing promise to pay a stipulated sum of money, with the principal amount due on a specific date. Funds raised through the sale of bonds can be used for various public purposes. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): A State Law requiring State and local agencies to regulate activities with consideration for environmental protection. If a proposed activity has the potential for a significant adverse environmental impact, an environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared and certified as to its adequacy before taking action on the proposed project. Coagulation: Coagulation water treatment applies chemicals to assist water particulates in combining together. When particulates are aggregated, they can be more easily removed from 150 the treated water. Community Facilities District: Under the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (Section 53311, et seq.) a legislative body may create within its jurisdiction a special tax district that can finance tax-exempt bonds for the planning, design, acquisition, construction, and/or operation of public facilities, as well as public services for district residents. Special taxes levied solely within the district are used to repay the bonds. Community Services District (CSD): A geographic subarea of a county used for planning and delivery of parks, recreation, and other human services based on an assessment of the service needs of the population in that subarea. A CSD is a taxation district with independent administration. Conventional Filtration Treatment (water service): A series of processes including coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, and filtration resulting in substantial particulate removal. Disinfectant: A chemical (commonly chlorine, chloramine, or ozone) or physical process (e.g., ultraviolet light) that kills microorganisms such as bacteria, viruses, and protozoa. Disinfection: A process which inactivates pathogenic organisms in water by chemical oxidants or equivalent agents. Distribution System: A network of pipes leading from a treatment plant to customers' plumbing systems. Domestic water use: Water used for household purposes, such as drinking, food preparation, bathing, washing clothes, dishes, and dogs, flushing toilets, and watering lawns and gardens. About 85% of domestic water is delivered to homes by a public-supply facility, such as a county water department. About 15% of the Nation's population supplies their own water, mainly from 151 wells. Environmental Impact Report (EIR): A report required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act that assesses all the environmental characteristics of an area, determines what
150 151
http://www.ehow.com/about_5100654_coagulation-water-treatment.html, July 13, 2010. http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/dictionary.html
80
effects or impact will result if the area is altered or disturbed by a proposed action, and identifies alternatives or other measures to avoid or reduce those impacts. (See California Environmental Quality Act.) Filtration: A process by which solids are filtered out of liquids, a stage in water treatment, a process for removing particulate matter from water by passage through porous media. Finished Water: Water that has been treated and is ready to be delivered to customers. Flocculation: A process where a solute comes out of solution in the form of floc or "flakes." The term is also used to refer to the process by which fine particulates are caused to clump together into floc. The floc may then float to the top of the liquid, settle to the bottom of the liquid, or can be readily filtered from the liquid. Groundwater: Water under the earths surface, often confined to aquifers capable of supplying wells and springs. Human consumption: the ingestion or absorption of water or water vapor as the result of drinking, cooking, dishwashing, hand washing, bathing, showering or oral hygiene. Impact Fee: A fee, also called a development fee, levied on the developer of a project by a county, or other public agency as compensation for otherwise-unmitigated impacts the project will produce. California Government Code Section 66000, et seq., specifies that development fees shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged. To lawfully impose a development fee, the public agency must verify its method of calculation and document proper restrictions on use of the fund. Infill Development: The development of vacant or underdeveloped land within the City is 152 referred to as infill. Infrastructure: Public services and facilities such as sewage-disposal systems, water-supply systems, and other utility systems, schools and roads. Land Use Classification: A system for classifying and designating the appropriate use of properties. Leapfrog Development: New development separated from existing development by substantial vacant land. Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO): A five-or seven-member commission within each county that reviews and evaluates all proposals for formation of special districts, incorporation of cities, annexation to special districts or cities, consolidation of districts, and merger of districts with cities. Each countys LAFCO is empowered to approve, disapprove, or conditionally approve such proposals. The LAFCO members generally include two county supervisors, two city council members, and one member representing the general public. Some LAFCOs include two representatives of special districts. Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL): The highest level of a contaminant that EPA allows in drinking water. MCLs ensure that drinking water does not pose either a short-term or long-term health risk. EPA sets MCLs at levels that are economically and technologically feasible. Some states set MCLs which are stricter than EPA's.
152
81
Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG): The level of a contaminant at which there would be no risk to human health. This goal is not always economically or technologically feasible, and the goal is not legally enforceable. Maximum residual disinfectant level (MRDL): the maximum allowable level of disinfectant in public drinking water. Most often, compliance with an MRDL is based on an average of multiple samples. Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal (MRDLG): The level of a disinfectant added for water treatment below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MRDLGs are set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mean Sea Level: The average altitude of the sea surface for all tidal stages. Milligrams per liter (mg/L): The weight in milligrams of any substance dissolved in one liter of liquid; nearly the same as parts per million. Mello-Roos Bonds: Locally issued bonds that are repaid by a special tax imposed on property owners within a community facilities district established by a governmental entity. The bond proceeds can be used for public improvements and for a limited number of services. Named after the programs legislative authors. Monitoring: Testing that water systems must perform to detect and measure contaminants. A water system that does not follow EPA's monitoring methodology or schedule is in violation, and may be subject to legal action. Municipal water system: A water system that has at least five service connections or which 153 regularly serves 25 individuals for 60 days; also called a public water system. Ordinance: A law or regulation set forth and adopted by a governmental authority. Potable Water: Water of a quality suitable for drinking.
154
Per capita water use: The water produced by or introduced into the system of a water supplier divided by the total residential population; normally expressed in gallons per capita per day 155 (gpcd). Primary Drinking Water Standards (PDWS): Maximum Contaminant Levels for contaminants. Proposition 13: (Article XIIIA of the California Constitution) Passed in 1978, this proposition enacted sweeping changes to the California property tax system. Under Prop. 13, property taxes cannot exceed 1% of the value of the property and assessed valuations cannot increase by more than 2% per year. Property is subject to reassessment when there is a transfer of ownership or 156 improvements are made. Proposition 218: (Article XIIID of the California Constitution) This proposition, named "The Right to Vote on Taxes Act", filled some of the perceived loopholes of Proposition 13. Under Proposition 218, assessments may only increase with a two-thirds majority vote of the qualified voters within the District. In addition to the two-thirds voter approval requirement, Proposition 218 states that effective July 1, 1997, any assessments levied may not be more than the costs necessary to provide the service, proceeds may not be used for any other purpose other than
153 154 155 156
http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/dictionary.html http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/dictionary.html http://rubicon.water.ca.gov/v1cwp/glssry.html http://www.californiataxdata.com/A_Free_Resources/glossary_PS.asp#ps_08
82
providing the services intended, and assessments may only be levied for services that are 157 immediately available to property owners. Public Health Goal (PHG): The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. PHGs are set by the California Environmental Protection Agency. Public Notification: An advisory that EPA requires a water system to distribute to affected consumers when the system has violated MCLs or other regulations. The notice advises consumers what precautions, if any, they should take to protect their health. Public Water Systems (PWS): A public water system provides piped water for human consumption to at least 15 service connections or serves an average of at least 25 people for at least 60 days each year, and includes the source of the water supply (i.e., surface or groundwater). PWSs can be community, nontransient noncommunity, or transient noncommunity systems, as defined by the EPA's Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program. Ranchette: A single dwelling unit occupied by a non-farming household on a parcel of 2.5 to 20 acres that has been subdivided from agricultural land. Raw Water: Water in its natural state, prior to any treatment for drinking. Regulatory Action Level: The concentration of a contaminant which, if exceeded, triggers treatment or other requirements that a water system must follow. Sanitary Sewer: A system of subterranean conduits that carries refuse liquids or waste matter to a plant where the sewage is treated, as contrasted with storm drainage systems (that carry surface water) and septic tanks or leach fields (that hold refuse liquids and waste matter on-site). Sanitary Survey: An on-site review of the water sources, facilities, equipment, operation, and maintenance of a public water systems for the purpose of evaluating the adequacy of the facilities for producing and distributing safe drinking water. Secondary Drinking Water Standards (SDWS): Non-enforceable federal guidelines regarding cosmetic effects (such as tooth or skin discoloration) or aesthetic effects (such as taste, odor, or color) of drinking water. Sedimentation: A process of settling particles out of a liquid in a treatment plant, a process for removal of solids before filtration by gravity or separation. Service area: The geographical land area served by a distribution system of a water agency. Source Water: Water in its natural state, prior to any treatment for drinking. Sphere of Influence (SOI): The probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency, as determined by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) of the county. Surface Water: The water that systems pump and treat from sources open to the atmosphere, such as rivers, lakes, and reservoirs. Total dissolved solids (TDS): A quantitative measure of the residual minerals dissolved in water 159 that remains after evaporation of a solution. TDS is usually expressed in milligrams per liter.
157 158 159
158
http://www.californiataxdata.com/A_Free_Resources/glossary_PS.asp#ps_08 http://rubicon.water.ca.gov/v1cwp/glssry.html http://rubicon.water.ca.gov/v1cwp/glssry.html
83
Treatment Technique: A required process intended to reduce the level of a contaminant in drinking water. Turbidity: The cloudy appearance of water caused by the presence of tiny particles. High levels of turbidity may interfere with proper water treatment and monitoring. Urban: Of, relating to, characteristic of, or constituting a city. Urban areas are generally characterized by moderate and higher density residential development (i.e., three or more dwelling units per acre), commercial development, and industrial development, and the availability of public services required for that development, specifically central water and sewer service, an extensive road network, public transit, and other such services (e.g., safety and emergency response). Development not providing such services may be non-urban or rural. CEQA defines urbanized area as an area that has a population density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile (Public Resources Code Section 21080.14(b)). Urban Services: Utilities (such as water, gas, electricity, and sewer) and public services (such as police, fire protection, schools, parks, and recreation) provided to an urbanized or urbanizing area. Violation: A failure to meet any state or federal drinking water regulation. Vulnerability Assessment: An evaluation of drinking water source quality and its vulnerability to contamination by pathogens and toxic chemicals. Water quality: Used to describe the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of water, 160 usually in regard to its suitability for a particular purpose or use. Water year: A continuous 12-month period for which hydrologic records are compiled and 161 summarized. In California, it begins on October 1 and ends September 30 of the following year. Watershed: The land area from which water drains into a stream, river, or reservoir. Zoning: The division of a city by legislative regulations into areas, or zones, that specify allowable uses for real property and size restrictions for buildings within these areas; a program that implements policies of the general plan.
160 161
http://rubicon.water.ca.gov/v1cwp/glssry.html http://rubicon.water.ca.gov/v1cwp/glssry.html
84
REFERENCES
Brelje & Race Consulting Civil Engineers, Preliminary Engineering Report Bonanza Springs Water System CSA #7 Lake County Special Districts, December 2006, p 8. Brelje & Race Consulting Civil Engineers, Preliminary Engineering Report Starview Water System CSA #18 Lake County Special Districts, December 2006, p. 4. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region, Order No. R-5-20070010, Cease and Desist Order for City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District Wastewater Treatment Facility, Lake County, March 15, 2007. City of Lakeport, 2009 Recycle Feasibility Study Report, February 2010, prepared by Pace Engineering, Redding CA. City of Lakeport, Annual Financial Report, June 30, 2009, Page 3. City of Lakeport, Budget Fiscal Year 2009/2010. City of Lakeport, Budget Fiscal Year 2010/2011. City of Lakeport, General Plan 2025, Economic Development Element, August 2009. City of Lakeport, General Plan 2025, Land Use Element, August 2009. City of Lakeport, General Plan 2025, Open Space, Parks and Recreation Element, August 2009. City of Lakeport, General Plan 2025, Safety Element, August 2009. City of Lakeport General Plan 2025, Transportation Element, August 2009. City of Lakeport General Plan 2025, Urban Boundary Element, August 2009, Page III-3. City of Lakeport, Housing Element, September 2009, Page 3-1. City of Lakeport, http://www.cityoflakeport.com/, July 4, 2010. City of Lakeport, http://www.cityoflakeport.com/departments/contact.aspx?deptID=88, July 10, 2010. City of Lakeport, http://www.cityoflakeport.com/departments/home.aspx?deptid=88, July 13, 2010. City of Lakeport, http://www.cityoflakeport.com/residents/fire.aspx, October 28, 2010. City of Lakeport, http://www.cityoflakeport.com/residents/waste.aspx, July 13, 2010. City of Lakeport, Notes to Financial Statements, June 30, 2009, Page 25 City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District, Sewer System Management Plan, 2010, Page 13. City of Lakeport, Draft South Main Street and Soda Bay Road Annexation Area Plan for Services, April 2011. City of Williams, Municipal Budget 2010-2012.
85
Commission on Fire Accreditation International, 2000 Durham, David L., California's Geographic Names: A Gazetteer of Historic and Modern Names of the State. Quill Driver Books, Page 90, ISBN 9781884995149, 1998. http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/dictionary.html http://rubicon.water.ca.gov/v1cwp/glssry.html http://www.californiataxdata.com/A_Free_Resources/glossary_PS.asp#ps_08 http://www.city-data.com/city/Lakeport-California.html, July 17, 2010. http://www.ehow.com/about_5100654_coagulation-water-treatment.html, July 13, 2010. http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/genInfo.php?locIndex=10389, July 4, 2010. http://www.lakeport.com/lakeport_california_history.htm, July 17, 2010. http://www.lakeportmainstreet.com/, July 17, 2010. Lake County, http://www.co.lake.ca.us/Government/DepartmentDirectory/Water_Resources/Division_Programs /Groundwater_Management.htm Lake County Watershed Protection District, Lake County Groundwater Management Plan, March 31, 2006. Lake County Watershed Protection District, Lake County Water Inventory and Analysis, March 2006. Lakeport Fire Protection District, http://www.lakeportfire.com/about/, October 28, 2010. Lakeport Fire Protection District http://www.lakeportfire.com/about/mission.asp, October 28, 2010. Mauldin, Henry K., "History of Clear Lake, Mt. Konocti and the Lake County Cattle Industry," 1960. NFPA Standard 1710, 2004. NSF International, Feasibility of an Economically Sustainable Point-of-Use/Point-of-Entry Decentralized Public Water System Final Report, March 2005, p18. nsf.org/business/.../pdf/GrimesFinalReport_Dec05.pdf Remy, Michael H., Tina A. Thomas, James G. Moose, Whitman F. Manley, Guide to CEQA, Solano Press Books, Point Arena, CA, February 2007, page 111. US Government, 29 CFR 1910.134. Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Amended Standard Agreement for Nonagricultural Water Sales Lake County Recorder, Document No. 95-016544.
86
PREPARERS John Benoit, Lake LAFCO Executive Officer PO Box 2694, Granite Bay CA 95746 Phone: 916-797-6003 E-Mail: johnbenoit@surewest.net Christy Leighton, Planning Consultant 555 East Willow Street, Willows CA 95988 Phone: 530-934-4597 E-Mail: christyleighton@sbcglobal.net
87
MAPS
88
89
90

Lakeport Municipal Review and Sphere of Influence

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Lakeport Municipal Review and Sphere of Influence

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

LAKE LAFCO

DRAFT CITY OF LAKEPORT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE

Lake LAFCO Policies and Procedures Related to Municipal Services

Preparation of the MSR

SETTING City of Lakeport Background

Lakeport Lake County California

4,390 50,631 29,760,021

4,820 58,309 33,871,648

9.8% 15.2% 13.8%

5,045 64,059 38,049,462

4.7% 9.7% 12.3%

City of Lakeport California United States

City of Lakeport Schools

Phone Number 707-262-3000

Phone Number 707-262-3000

Phone Number 707-262-3000

Phone Number 707-262-3000

Phone Number 707-262-3000

http://www.lakeportmainstreet.com/, July 17, 2010.

CITY OF LAKEPORT City of Lakeport Management City of Lakeport Mission Statement

2010/2011 Budget16 $109,027

$75,856 $178,473 0 $254,329

$74,685 $132,838 0 $207,523

$70,153 $88,396 0 $158,549

$59,609 $58,258 0 $117,866

City of Lakeport, http://www.cityoflakeport.com/departments/home.aspx?deptID=43, July 13, 2010.

2010/2011 Budget20 $125,919

$40,446 $35,129 772 $76,347

$49,905 $25,094 **5,250 $80,249

$47,349 $16,730 *1,710 $65,789

$73,420 $26,221 *3,000 $102,641

$91,334 $33,086 *1,500 $125,919

** Vehicle,*Office Equipment and Furnishings

2010/2011 Budget29 $161,344 $89,975 71,368 0 $161,344

City of Lakeport, http://www.cityoflakeport.com/departments/home.aspx?deptid=87, July 13, 2010.

2010/2011 Budget38 $59,376 $43,022 $15,953 400 $59,376

Fire and EMS Dispatch Issues

City of Lakeport Fire Protection

Police Protection Law Enforcement Overview

Law Enforcement Standards

City of Lakeport, http://www.cityoflakeport.com/departments/page.aspx?deptID=76&id=52, July 13, 2010.

City of Lakeport, http://www.cityoflakeport.com/departments/page.aspx?deptID=76&id=50, July 13, 2010.

Revenue Expenditures Salaries/Benefits Operating Expense Capital Outlay Total Expense

2010/2011 Budget53 $1,782,579 $1,453,016 256,563 73,000 $1,782,579

Water Service Finances Water Treatment Costs

City of Lakeport Wastewater Treatment System

History of Wastewater Treatment

2009 0.48 3.40*

Wastewater Treatment Regulations

2010/2011 Budget105 $1,104,263 $336,588 242,280

Capital Outlay Total Expense

Park Lakefront Park Library Park

Westside Community Park

*Most of the 5 acres is used for parking

City of Lakeport, http://www.cityoflakeport.com/residents/waste.aspx, July 13, 2010.

2010/2011 Budget122 $472,435

121 122 123 124

Annual Financial Report

125 126 127

CITY OF LAKEPORT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW

Lakeport Lake County2 (all)

Capacity and Infrastructure

Wastewater Collection and Treatment

Solid Waste Collection and Disposal